Child Maltreatment 2022

Child Maltreatment

2022

U.S. Department of Health & Human Services

Administration for Children and Families

Administration on Children, Youth and Families

Children’s Bureau

This report was prepared by the Children’s Bureau (Administration on Children, Youth and

Families, Administration for Children and Families) of the U.S. Department of Health and

Human Services.

Public Domain Notice

Material contained in this publication is in the public domain and may be reproduced, fully or

partially, without permission of the federal government.

Electronic Access

This report is available on the Children’s Bureau website at

https://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb/data-research/child-maltreatment.

Questions and More Information

If you have questions or require additional information about this report, please contact the

Child Welfare Information Gateway at info@childwelfare.gov or 1–800–394–3366. If you have

questions about a specic state’s data or policies, contact information is provided for each state

in Appendix D, State Commentary.

Data Sets

Restricted use les of the NCANDS submissions are archived at the National Data Archive on

Child Abuse and Neglect (NDACAN) at Cornell University. Researchers who are interested in

these les for statistical analyses may contact NDACAN by phone at 607–255–7799, by email at

ndacan@cornell.edu or on the Internet at https://www.ndacan.acf.hhs.gov/. NDACAN serves as

the repository for the NCANDS data sets, but is not the author of the

Child Maltreatment report.

Recommended Citation

U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Administration for Children and Families,

Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Children’s Bureau. (2024). Child Maltreatment

2022. Available from https://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb/data-research/child-maltreatment.

Federal Contact

Cara Kelly, Ph.D.

Child Welfare Program Specialist

330 C Street, S.W.

Mary E. Switzer Building, Room 3419B

Washington, DC

cara.kelly@acf.hhs.gov

Child Maltreatment

2022

Child Maltreatment 2022

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES

Letter from the Associate Commissioner:

Child Maltreatment 2022 (the report) is the latest edition of the annual Child Maltreatment

report series. The report is used by researchers, practitioners, and advocates throughout the

world as a source for national child welfare data. The report is available from our website

at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb/data-research/child-maltreatment.

Jurisdictions provide the data for this report via the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data

System (NCANDS). NCANDS was established as a voluntary, national data collection and

analysis program to make available state child abuse and neglect information. Since 1991,

child welfare agencies in the 50 states, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the District

of Columbia have collected and submitted data for NCANDS. For federal scal year (FFY)

2022, 52 states submitted both a Child File and an Agency File. Key ndings in this report

include:

■ Nationally during FFY 2022, 3,096,101 children received either an investigation response or

alternative response at a rate of 42.4 children per 1,000 in the population.

■ For FFY 2022, 52 states reported 558,899 victims of child abuse and neglect. This is a national

rate of 7.7 victims per 1,000 children in the population.

■ FFY 2022 data show 74.3 percent of victims experience neglect, 17.0 percent are physically

abused, 10.6 percent are sexually abused, and 6.8 percent are psychologically maltreated.

■ A nationally estimated 1,990 children died from abuse and neglect at a rate of 2.73 per 100,000

children in the population.

NCANDS would not be possible without the time, effort, and dedication of state and local

child welfare, information technology, and related agency personnel working together on

behalf of children and families. We gratefully acknowledge the efforts of all involved to

make resources like this report possible as we continue to do everything we can to promote

the safety and well-being of our nation’s children.

Data is critically important to improving child welfare outcomes. But data can only take us

so far. Good data does more than just provide us with information. These key ndings should

lead to further exploration and questions. For example, what story is the data starting to

tell? What information is missing? How is the data collected, and who made decisions about

which data is important to collect? Is there a diverse group of people determining which data

is important to collect? Is any group that is not represented in the data collection? How can

we drive innovation and better outcomes for children and families using these data?

Throughout all of our work, the Children’s Bureau continues to focus on promoting equity

and reducing disproportionality in child welfare systems. Chapter seven of the Child

Maltreatment 2022 report is entitled “Special Focus.” The analyses in this chapter review the

different dimensions of maltreatment data so that jurisdictions can have more information to

examine and prevent disproportionate outcomes, particularly for Black, Brown, and Native

American children. This data also can be used to inform specic programs or policies to

The national estimate of child fatalities is calculated by multiplying the national fatality rate by the child population of all

52 states and dividing by 100,000. The estimate is rounded to the nearest 10. For 2022, 51 states reported fatality data.

Letter iiii

iii

Child Maltreatment 2022

support victims of child maltreatment and to work with families to prevent maltreatment. We

hope jurisdictions will use the data and analyses in the Child Maltreatment 2022 report and

other sources of information to work to reduce disproportionate outcomes for populations of

children and their families.

Preventing maltreatment should always be the top priority. Children’s Bureau has worked

arduously to support jurisdictions to submit title IV-E prevention plans that include excit

ing evidence-based programs. Additionally, we have promulgated a regulation that will

allow

separate licensing standards for relative caregivers in support of caregivers who

care for children who cannot live with their parents safely. Similarly, we have published a

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that will allow agencies to claim federal nancial participa

tion for the cost of providing an attorney to categories of individuals who are involved with

child welfare cases.

The Child Maltreatment 2022 report provides important, detailed insight into what is hap

pening for children who are the subject of a CPS investigation or CPS alternative response.

However, the report is only the beginning of the inquiry: use it to ask yourself and your

colleagues more questions and to challenge existing assumptions. For example, think about

ways to support families who have economic needs in order to prevent child maltreatment or

child welfare involvement. What additional questions does the disproportionality data raise

for you? My hope and expectation is that this report will encourage jurisdictions to ask as

many questions as it answers so that we can continue to work together to improve the lives

and outcomes for children, young people, and families. Thank you, as always, for using your

time, talent, and creativity in support of the families that we serve.

In Unity,

/s/

Aysha E. Schomburg, Associate Commissioner, Children’s Bureau

Letter

Child Maltreatment 2022

Acknowledgements iv

Acknowledgements

The Children’s Bureau in the Administration on Children, Youth and Families (ACYF), the

Administration for Children and Familes (ACF), within the U.S. Department of Health and

Human Services (HHS), strives to ensure the wellbeing of our Nation’s children through

many programs and activities. One such activity is the National Child Abuse and Neglect

Data System (NCANDS) of the Children’s Bureau. National and state statistics about child

maltreatment are derived from the data collected by child protective services agencies and

reported to NCANDS. The data is analyzed, disseminated, and released in an annual report.

Child Maltreatment 2022 marks the 33rd edition of this report. The administration hopes that

the report continues to serve as a valuable resource for policymakers, child welfare practitio

ners, researchers, and other concerned citizens.

The 2022 national statistics are based upon receiving case-level and aggregate data from 50

states, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia.

CB/ACYF/ACF/HHS wishes to thank the many people who made this publication possible.

The Children’s Bureau has been fortunate to collaborate with informed and committed state

personnel who work hard to provide comprehensive data, which reects the work of their

agencies.

CB/ACYF/ACF/HHS gratefully acknowledges the priorities that were set by state and local

agencies to submit data to the Children’s Bureau, and thanks the caseworkers and supervisors

who contribute to and use their state’s information system. The time and effort dedicated by

these and other individuals are the foundation of this successful federal-state partnership.

Contents

Letter from the AssociAte commissioner ii

cknowLedgements iv

ummAry ix

hApter 1: Introduction 1

Background of NCANDS 1

Annual Data Collection Process 2

2020 Census 3

NCANDS as a Resource 3

Structure of the Report 4

hApter 2: Reports 6

Screening 6

Report Sources 9

CPS Response Time 10

CPS Workforce and Caseload 10

Exhibit and Table Notes 11

hApter 3: Children 17

Alternative Response 18

Unique and Duplicate Counts 19

Children Who Received an Investigation or Alternative Response 19

Children Who Received an Investigation or Alternative Response by Disposition 19

Number of Child Victims 20

Child Victim Demographics 21

Maltreatment Types 22

Focus on Maltreatment Categories 22

Perpetrator Relationship 23

Risk Factors 24

Reporting Infants with Prenatal Substance Exposure to NCANDS 24

Number of Infants with Prenatal Substance Exposure 25

Screened-in Infants with Prenatal Substance Exposure Who Have a Plan of Safe Care 26

Screened-in Infants with Prenatal Substance Exposure Who Have a Referral to

Appropriate Services 26

Exhibit and Table Notes 26

Child Maltreatment 2022

Contents v

chApter 4: Fatalities 52

Number of Child Fatalities 52

Child Fatality Demographics 53

Maltreatment Types 55

Risk Factors 55

Perpetrator Relationship 56

Prior CPS Contact 56

Exhibit and Table Notes 56

hApter 5: Perpetrators 64

Number of Perpetrators 64

Perpetrator Demographics 64

Perpetrator Relationship 65

Exhibit and Table Notes 66

hApter 6: Services 76

Prevention Services 76

Postresponse Services 78

History of Receiving Services 80

Part C of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) 80

Exhibit and Table Notes 80

chApter 7: Special Focus 93

Introduction 93

Maltreatment Type Substantiations 94

Maltreatment Type Combinations of Victims 94

Maltreatment Types and Report Sources of Victims 95

Maltreatment Types by Race and Ethnicity 96

Victims of Selected Maltreatment Types by Sex and Age 96

Maltreatment Types of Victims by Perpetrator Sex 99

Conclusion 100

Exhibit and Table Notes 100

Appendix A: CAPTA Data Items 108

ppendix B: Glossary 110

ppendix c: State Characteristics 128

ppendix d: State Commentary 136

Child Maltreatment 2022

Contents vi

Exhibits

Exhibit S–1 Summary of Child Maltreatment Rates per 1,000 Children, 2018–2022 xiv

Exhibit S–2 Statistics at a Glance, 2022 xv

Exhibit 2–A Screened-in Referral Rates, 2018–2022 6

Exhibit 2–B Screened-out Referral Rates, 2018–2022 7

Exhibit 2–C Total Referral Rates, 2018–2022 8

Exhibit 2–D Number of Referrals, 2018–2022 8

Exhibit 2–E Report Sources, 2022 9

Exhibit 3–A Child Disposition Rates, 2018–2022 19

Exhibit 3–B Children Who Received an Investigation or Alternative Response by

Disposition, 2022 20

Exhibit 3–C Child Victimization Rates, 2018–2022 21

Exhibit 3–D Victims by Age, 2022 22

Exhibit 4–A Child Fatality Rates per 100,000 Children, 2018–2022 53

Exhibit 4–B Child Fatalities by Age, 2022 54

Exhibit 4–C Child Fatalities by Sex, 2022 54

Exhibit 4–D Child Fatalities by Race or Ethnicity, 2022 55

Exhibit 4–E Maltreatment Types of Child Fatalities, 2022 55

Exhibit 4–F Child Fatalities with Selected Caregiver Risk Factors, 2022 56

Exhibit 5–A Perpetrators by Age, 2022 65

Exhibit 5–B Perpetrators by Race or Ethnicity, 2022 65

Exhibit 7–A Children by Number of Maltreatment Type Combinations, 2022 95

Exhibit 7–B Selected Maltreatment Types of Victims by Known Race or

Ethnicity, 2022 96

Exhibit 7–C Victims of Neglect by Sex and Age, 2022 97

Exhibit 7–D Victims of Physical Abuse and Age, 2022

Exhibit 7–E Victims of Psychological Maltreatment by Sex and Age, 2022 98

Exhibit 7–F Victims of Sex Abuse by Sex and Age, 2022 99

Tables

Table 2–1 Screened-in and Screened-out Referrals, 2022 13

Table 2–2 Average Response Time in Hours, 2018–2022 14

Table 2–3 Child Protective Services Workforce, 2022 15

Table 2–4 Child Protective Services Caseload, 2022 16

Table 3–1 Children Who Received an Investigation or Alternative Response, 2018–2022 30

Table 3–2 Children Who Received an Investigation or Alternative Response

by Disposition, 2022 32

Table 3–3 Child Victims, 2018–2022 34

Table 3–4 First-time Victims, 2022 36

Table 3–5 Victims by Age, 2022 37

Table 3–6 Victims by Sex, 2022 41

Table 3–7 Victims by Race or Ethnicity, 2022 42

Table 3–8 Maltreatment Types of Victims (Categories), 2022 44

Table 3–9 Victims by Relationship to Their Perpetrators, 2022 46

Table 3–10 Victims with Caregiver Risk Factors, 2022 47

Table 3–11 Infants with Prenatal Substance Exposure by Submission Type, 2022 49

Table 3–12 Screened-in Infants with Prenatal Substance Exposure Who Have

a Plan of Safe Care, 2022 50

Child Maltreatment 2022

Contents vii

Table 3–13 Screened-in Infants with Prenatal Substance Exposure Who

Have a Referral to Appropriate Services, 2022 51

Table 4–1 Child Fatalities by Submission Type, 2022 59

Table 4–2 Child Fatalities, 2018–2022 60

Table 4–3 Child Fatalities by Age, 2022 61

Table 4–4 Child Fatalities by Relationship to Their Perpetrators, 2022 61

the Previous 5 Years, 2022

Table 4–5 Child Fatalities Who Received Family Preservation Services within

Previous 5 Years, 2022

Table 4–6 Child Fatalities Who Were Reunited with Their Families within the

Table 5–1 Perpetrators, 2018–2022 68

Table 5–2 Perpetrators by Age, 2022 69

Table 5–3 Perpetrators by Sex, 2022 71

Table 5–4 Perpetrators by Race or Ethnicity, 2022 72

Table 5–5 Perpetrators by Relationship to Their Victims, 2022 74

Table 6–1 Children Who Received Prevention Services by Funding Source, 2022 83

Table 6–2 Children Who Received Postresponse Services, 2022 86

Table 6–3 Average and Median Number of Days to Initiation of Services, 2022 87

Removal Date on or After the Report Date, 2022

Table 6–4 Children Who Received Foster Care Postresponse Services and Who Had a

Table 6–5 Victims with Court-Appointed Representatives, 2022 89

Previous 5 Years, 2022

Table 6–6 Victims Who Received Family Preservation Services within the

Previous 5 Years, 2022

Table 6–7 Victims Who Were Reunited with Their Families within the

to Part C Agencies, 2022

Table 6–8 IDEA: Victims Who Were Eligible and Victims Who Were Referred

Table 7–1 Maltreatment Type Substantiations, 2022 102

Table 7–2 Maltreatment Type Combinations, 2022 102

Table 7–3 Maltreatment Types of Victims by Report Source, 2022 103

Table 7–4 Maltreatment Types of Victims by Known Race or Ethnicity, 2022 104

Table 7–5 Victims of Neglect by Sex and Age, 2022 104

Table 7–6 Victims of Physical Abuse by Sex and Age, 2022 105

Table 7–7 Victims of Psychological Maltreatment by Sex and Age, 2022 105

Table 7–8 Victims of Sexual Abuse by Sex and Age, 2022 106

Table 7–9 Maltreatment Types of Victims by Perpetrator Sex, 2022 106

Submitted, 2022

Table C–1 State Administrative Structure, Level of Evidence, and Data Files

130

Table C–2 Child Population, 2018–2022 131

Table C–3 Child Population Demographics, 2022 132

Table C–4 Adult Population by Age Group, 2022 135

Child Maltreatment 2022

Contents viii

Summary ix

Child Maltreatment 2022

Summary

Overview

All 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. Territories have child abuse and

neglect reporting laws that mandate certain professionals and institutions refer sus

pected maltreatment to a child protective services (CPS) agency. Each state has its

own denitions of child abuse and neglect that are based on standards set by federal

law. Federal legislation provides a foundation for states by identifying a set of acts

or behaviors that dene child abuse and neglect. The Child Abuse Prevention and

Treatment Act (CAPTA), (P.L. 100–294), as amended by the CAPTA Reauthorization

Act of 2010 (P.L. 111–320), retained the existing denition of child abuse and neglect

as, at a minimum:

Any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker which results in

death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation [ ]; or an

act or failure to act, which presents an imminent risk of serious harm.

The Justice for Victims of Trafcking Act (P.L. 114–22) added the requirement to

include sex trafcking victims in the denition of child abuse and neglect. The follow

ing pages provide a summary of key information from this report. The information is

provided in a question-and-answer format as the Children’s Bureau is anticipating the

most common questions for each chapter of the report. Please refer to the individual

chapters for detailed information about each topic and the relevant data. Denitions

of terms also are provided in Appendix B, Glossary.

What is the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS)?

NCANDS is a federally sponsored effort that collects and analyzes annual data on

child abuse and neglect. The 1988 CAPTA amendments directed the U.S. Department

of Health and Human Services to establish a national data collection and analy

sis program. The data is collected and analyzed by the Children’s Bureau in the

Administration on Children, Youth and Families (ACYF), the Administration for Children

and Families (ACF) within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

The data is submitted voluntarily by the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The rst report from NCANDS was based on data for

1990. This report for federal scal year (FFY) 2022 is the 33rd issuance of this annual

publication.

How is the data used?

NCANDS data is used for the Child Maltreatment report series. In addition, the data

is a critical source of information for many publications, reports, and activities of the

federal government and other groups. For example, NCANDS data is used in the

annual publication, Child Welfare Outcomes: Report to Congress. More information

about these reports and programs are available on the Children’s Bureau website at

https://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb.

What data is collected?

Once an allegation (called a referral) of abuse or neglect is received by a CPS agency,

it is either screened-in for a response by CPS or it is screened-out. A screened-in

referral is called a report. CPS agencies respond to all reports. In most states, the

majority of reports receive investigations, which determine if a child was maltreated

or is at-risk of maltreatment, and establish whether an intervention is needed. Some

reports receive alternative responses, which focus primarily upon the needs of the

family and do not determine if a child was maltreated or is at-risk of maltreatment.

NCANDS collects case-level data on all children who received a CPS agency response

in the form of an investigation response or an alternative response. Case-level data

(meaning individual child record data) includes information about the characteristics of

screened-in referrals (reports) of abuse and neglect that are made to CPS agencies,

the children involved, the types of maltreatment, the dispositions of the CPS responses,

the risk factors of the child and their caregivers, the services that are provided, and the

perpetrators. NCANDS collects agency-level aggregate statistics in a separate data

submission called the Agency File.

Where is the data available?

The Child Maltreatment reports from this edition back to 1995 are available on the

Children’s Bureau website at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb/data-research/child-maltreatment.

If you have questions or require additional information about this report, please

contact the Child Welfare Information Gateway at info@childwelfare.gov or

1–800–394–3366. Restricted use les of NCANDS submissions are archived at the

National Data Archive on Child Abuse and Neglect (NDACAN) at Cornell University

https://www.ndacan.acf.hhs.gov/. Researchers who are interested in using these les

for statistical analyses may contact NDACAN by phone at 607–255–7799 or by email at

ndacan@cornell.edu. See chapter 1 for more information about NCANDS and the data

collection.

How many allegations of maltreatment are reported and screened-in

for an investigation response or alternative response?

For 2022, CPS agencies received a national estimate of 4,276,000 total referrals. The

total referrals alleging maltreatment includes approximately 7,530,000 children. The

national rate of screened-in referrals (reports) is 29.0 per 1,000 children in the national

population. Among the 47 states that report both screened-in and screened-out refer

rals, 49.5 percent of referrals are screened-in and 50.5 percent are screened-out.

Child Maltreatment 2022

Summary x

Summary xi

Child Maltreatment 2022

Who reports child maltreatment?

For 2022, professionals submitted 70.0 percent of reports alleging child abuse and

neglect. The term professional means that the person has contact with the alleged

child maltreatment victim as part of his or her job. This term includes teachers, police

ofcers, lawyers, and social services staff. The highest percentages of reports are

from legal and law enforcement personnel (21.2%), education personnel (20.7%), and

medical personnel (11.2%).

Nonprofessionals, including friends, neighbors, and relatives, submitted fewer than

one-fth of reports (15.2%). Unclassied sources submitted the remaining reports

(14.8%). Unclassied includes anonymous, “other,” and unknown report sources.

States use the code “other” for any report source that does not have an NCANDS

designated code. See Appendix D, State Commentary, for additional information

provided by the states as to what is included in “other.” See chapter 2 for more

information about referrals and reports.

Who are the child victims?

For FFY 2022, there are 558,899 victims of child abuse and neglect nationally. The

victim rate is 7.7 victims per 1,000 children in the population. (See chapter 3.) Victim

demographics include:

■ Children younger than 1 year old have the highest rate of victimization at 22.2 per

1,000 children of the same age in the national population.

■ The victimization rate for girls is 8.2 per 1,000 girls in the population, which is

higher than boys at 7.1 per 1,000 boys in the population.

■ American-Indian or Alaska Native children have the highest rate of victimization

at 14.3 per 1,000 children in the population of the same race or ethnicity; and

Black or African-American children have the second highest rate at 12.1 per

1,000 children of the same race or ethnicity.

What are the most common types of maltreatment?

NCANDS collects all maltreatment type allegations, however only those maltreat

ments with a disposition of substantiated or indicated are included in the Child

Maltreatment report. A child may be determined to be a victim multiple times within

the same FFY and up to four different maltreatment types in each victim report.

In the analysis included in chapter 3, a victim who has more than one type of

maltreatment is counted once per type. This answers the question of how many

different types of maltreatment do victims have, rather than how many occurrences

of each type. For FFY 2022, 74.3 percent of victims are neglected, 17.0 percent are

physically abused, 10.6 percent are sexually abused, and 6.8 are psychologically

maltreated.

How many infants with prenatal substance exposure are there?

The Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act (CARA) of 2016 includes an

amendment to CAPTA to collect and report the number of infants with prenatal

substance exposure (IPSE), IPSE with a plan of safe care, and IPSE with a referral to

appropriate services.

FFY 2022 data shows 45,756 infants in 50 states being referred to CPS agencies

as infants with prenatal substance exposure. The majority (79.2%) of IPSE were

screened-in to CPS to receive either an investigation or alternative response. For

FFY 2022, 33 states reported 23,781 screened-in IPSE (69.5%) have a plan of safe

care and 32 states reported 22,883 screened-in IPSE (68.4%) have a referral to

appropriate services.

What risk factors do caregivers have?

Risk factors are characteristics of a child or caregiver that may increase the likeli

hood of child maltreatment. Caregivers with these risk factors who are included in

each analysis may or may not be the perpetrators responsible for the maltreatment.

Refer to chapter 3 or Appendix B, Glossary for denitions of caregiver risk factors

included in this report.

In 39 reporting states, 95,794 victims (23.8%) have the drug abuse caregiver risk

factor and in 35 reporting states, 99,255 victims (26.5%) have the domestic violence

caregiver risk factor. See chapter 3 for more information about maltreatment victims.

How many children died from abuse or neglect?

Child fatalities are the most tragic consequence of maltreatment. For FFY 2022, a

national estimate of 1,990 children died from abuse and neglect at a rate of 2.73 per

100,000 children in the population. See chapter 4 for more information about child

fatalities. The child fatality demographics show:

■ The youngest children are the most vulnerable to maltreatment, with children

younger than 1 representing 44.7 percent of child fatalities; a fatality rate of 24.37

per 100,000 children in that age range.

■ Boys have a higher child fatality rate at 3.26 per 100,000 boys in the population

when compared with girls at 2.25 per 100,000 girls in the population.

■ The rate of Black or African-American child fatalities (6.37 per 100,000 African-

American children) is 3.3 times greater than the rate of White children (1.99 per

100,000 White children) and 3.8 times greater than the rate of Hispanic children

(1.68 per 100,000 Hispanic children).

Who abuses and neglects children?

A perpetrator is the person who is responsible for the abuse or neglect of a child.

Fifty-two states reported 434,090 perpetrators. See chapter 5 for more information

about perpetrators of maltreatment. The analyses of case-level data show:

■ The majority (68.8%) of perpetrators are between the ages of 25 and 44 years old.

■ More than one-half of perpetrators are female, 47.7 percent of perpetrators are

male, and 1.1 percent have an unknown sex.

■ The three largest percentages of perpetrators are White (47.4%), Black or African-

American (21.0%), and Hispanic (20.3%).

■ The majority (76.0%) of perpetrators are a parent to their victim.

Child Maltreatment 2022

Summary xii

Who received services?

CPS agencies provide services to children and their families, both in their homes

and in foster care. Reasons for providing services may include (1) preventing future

instances of child maltreatment and (2) remedying conditions that brought the chil

dren and their family to the attention of the agency. See chapter 6 for more informa

tion about children and their families who received services. During 2022:

■ Forty-ve states reported approximately 1.9 million (1,922,792) children received

prevention services.

■ Fifty-one states reported 897,486 children (both victims and nonvictims) received

postresponse services from a CPS agency.

■ More than one-half (55.0%) of victims and one-fth (20.3%) of nonvictims received

postresponse services.

What is the Special Focus chapter?

The purpose of chapter 7 is to highlight analyses of specic subsets of children or

data analyses focusing on a specic topic. The analyses in this chapter review the

different dimensions of maltreatment type data to determine if there are any patterns

or disproportionality within the data that will assist with targeting specic programs or

policies to aid the victims and their families. Key highlights include:

■ The FFY 2022 data shows 88.6 percent of victims have one type of substantiated

maltreatment, although, they could be reported and determined to be a victim of

one type of maltreatment multiple times.

■ For all report sources, neglect is the most common maltreatment type.

Percentages range from 51.0 percent from mental health personnel to 71.7 from

unclassied.

■ Within each race or ethnicity, most victims have the neglect maltreatment type.

Also, most races or ethnicities have physical abuse as the second highest per-

centage of maltreatment.

■ Analyzing the most common maltreatment type by age and sex shows that while

nationally the victims of neglect are split relatively evenly between the sexes,

analyzing by single year age shows some differences. From birth until age 10,

boys are more represented among neglect victim; beginning at age 11, girls are

more often determined to be neglect victims.

■ Slightly more victims are maltreated by female perpetrators, at 51.9 percent, than

male perpetrators, at 47.3 percent.

Child Maltreatment 2022

Summary xiii

Child Maltreatment 2022

National Summary

A summary of national rates per 1,000 children is provided below (S–1) and a one–

page chart of key statistics from the annual report is on the following page (S–2).

Exhibit S–1 Summary Child Maltreatment Rates per 1,000 Children, 2018–2022

Based on data from 52 states for FFY 2018-2020 and 2022, and 51 states for FFY 2021.

Summary xiv

Exhibit S–2 Statistics at a Glance, 2022

ReferralsReportsChildrenServices

,119,706 REPORTS received

a disposition (finding)

Submitted by

70.0% professionals

15.2% nonprofessionals

14.8% unclassied

558,899 VICTIMS

Includes 1,990* Fatalities

2,537,202* NONVICTIMS

3,4

49.5% REFERRALS SCREENED-IN

(become reports)

50.5% REFERRALS SCREENED-OUT

299,876 VICTIMS

received postresponse services

104,747 VICTIMS

received foster care services

597,610 NONVICTIMS

4,5

received postresponse services

40,702 NONVICTIMS

4,6

received foster care services

4,276,000* REFERRALS alleging maltreatment to CPS

involving 7,530,000* children

,096,101 CHILDREN received

Either an investigation or alternative response

Indicates a nationally estimated number. Please refer to the relevant chapter notes for information about thresholds, exclusions,

and how the estimates are calculated.

The average number of children included in a referral was (1.8 rounded).

Among the states that reported both screened-in and screened-out referrals.

The number of unique nonvictims is calculated by subtracting the unique count of victims from the unique count of children.

Includes children who received an alternative response.

Based on data from 51 states. These are duplicate counts.

Based on data from 49 states. These are duplicate counts. Only the children who are removed from their home on or after the

report date and up to 90 days after the disposition date are counted.

Child Maltreatment 2022

Summary xv

chApter 1: Introduction 1

Child Maltreatment 2022

Introduction

CHAPTER 1

Child abuse and neglect is one of the nation’s most serious concerns. This important issue is

addressed in many ways by the Children’s Bureau in the Administration on Children, Youth

and Families (ACYF), the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) within the U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The Children’s Bureau strives to ensure

the safety, permanency, and well-being of all children by working with state, tribal, and local

agencies to develop programs to prevent child abuse and neglect in a variety of projects,

including:

■ Providing guidance on federal law, policy, and program regulations.

■ Funding essential services, helping states and tribes operate every aspect of their child

welfare systems.

■ Supporting innovation through competitive, peer-reviewed grants for research and pro-

gram development.

■ Offering training and technical assistance to improve child welfare service delivery.

■ Monitoring child welfare services to help states and tribes achieve positive outcomes for

children and families.

■ Sharing research to help child welfare professionals improve their services.

Child Maltreatment 2022 presents national data about child abuse and neglect known to

child protective services (CPS) agencies in the United States during federal scal year (FFY)

2022. The data is collected and analyzed through the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data

System (NCANDS), which is an initiative of the Children’s Bureau.

Approximately 60 data tables and exhibits are included in the Child Maltreatment report

each year. Certain analyses are determined by federal legislation, while others are in

response to the needs of federal agencies, policy decision makers, child welfare agency staff,

and researchers.

Background of NCANDS

The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) was amended in 1988 (P.L. 100–

294) to direct the Secretary of HHS to establish a national data collection and analysis pro

gram, which would make available state child abuse and neglect reporting information. HHS

responded by establishing NCANDS as a voluntary national reporting system. During 1992,

HHS produced its rst NCANDS report based on data from 1990. The Child Maltreatment

report series evolved from that initial report and is now in its 33rd edition. During 1996,

CAPTA was amended to require all states that receive funds from the Basic State Grant

program to work with the Secretary of HHS to provide specic data, to the maximum extent

practicable, about children who had been maltreated. Subsequent CAPTA amendments added

Child Maltreatment 2022

chApter 1: Introduction 2

data elements and readers are encouraged to review Appendix A, CAPTA Data Items, most of

which are reported by states to NCANDS.

A successful federal-state partnership is the core component of NCANDS. Each state desig

nates one person to be the NCANDS state contact. The state contacts from all 52 states (unless

otherwise noted, the term “states” includes the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth

of Puerto Rico) work with the Children’s Bureau and the NCANDS Technical Team to uphold

the high-quality standards associated with NCANDS data. Webinars, technical bulletins,

virtual meetings, email, and phone conferences are used regularly to facilitate information

sharing and provision of technical assistance.

NCANDS has the objective to collect nationally standardized case-level and aggregate

data and to make the data useful for policy decision makers, child welfare researchers, and

practitioners. The NCANDS Technical Team developed a general data standardization (map

ping) procedure whereby all states systematically dene the rules for extracting the data

from the states’ child welfare information system into the standard NCANDS data format.

Team members provide one-on-one technical assistance to states to assist with data mapping,

construction, extraction, and data submission and validation.

Annual Data Collection Process

The NCANDS reporting year is based on the FFY calendar, which for Child Maltreatment

2022 is October 1, 2021, through September 30, 2022. States submit case-level data by con

structing an electronic le of child-specic records for each report of alleged child abuse and

neglect that received a CPS response. Each state’s le only includes completed reports with a

disposition (or nding) as an outcome of the CPS response during the reporting year. The data

submission containing the case-level data is called the Child File.

The Child File is supplemented by agency-level aggregate statistics in a separate data

submission called the Agency File. The Agency File contains data that are not reportable

at the child-specic level and are often gathered from agencies external to CPS (e.g., vital

statistics departments, child death review teams, law enforcement agencies, etc.). States

are asked to submit both the Child File and the Agency File each year. For more informa

tion about the Child File and Agency File please go to the Children’s Bureau website at

https://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb/data-research/ncands.

Upon receipt of data from each state, a technical validation review assesses the internal consis

tency and identies probable causes for any missing data. If the reviews conclude that correc

tions are necessary, the state may be asked to resubmit its data. States also have the opportunity

to give context to their data by providing information about policies, procedures, and legislation

in their State Commentary. (See Appendix C, State Characteristics for additional information

about submissions and Appendix D, State Commentary for information from states about their

data.)

For FFY 2022, 52 states submitted both a Child File and an Agency File. The most recent data

submissions or resubmissions from states are included in trend tables and this may account for

some differences in the counts from previous reports.

Child Maltreatment 2022

chApter 1: Introduction 3

2020 Census

With each Child Maltreatment report, the most recent population data from the U.S. Census

Bureau are used. Child Maltreatment 2022 is the second edition to use population estimates

from the 2020 Census. The population estimates for 2020–2022 are the most recently

updated estimates based on the 2020 census.

Information about the population estimates

may be found at https://www.census.gov/. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the 2022

child population is for more than 72 million children. See table C–2.

NCANDS as a Resource

The NCANDS data is a critical source of information for many publications, reports, and

activities of the federal government, child welfare personnel, researchers, and others. Some

examples of programs and reports that use NCANDS data are discussed below. More infor

mation about these reports and programs are available on the Children’s Bureau website at

https://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb.

■ Child Welfare Outcomes: Report to Congress: This annual report presents informa

tion on state and national performance in seven outcome categories. Data for the

Child Welfare Outcomes measures and the majority of the context data in this report

come from NCANDS and the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting

System (AFCARS). The reports are available on the Children’s Bureau’s website at

https://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb/data-research/child-welfare-outcomes.

■ Child and Family Services Reviews (CFSRs): The Children’s Bureau conducts periodic

reviews of state child welfare systems to ensure conformity with federal requirements,

determine what is happening with children and families who are engaged in child welfare

services, and assist states with helping children and families achieve positive outcomes.

States develop Program Improvement Plans to address areas revealed by the CFSR as in need

of improvement. For CFSR Round 4, NCANDS data is the basis for two of the CFSR national

data indicators, Recurrence of Maltreatment and Maltreatment in Foster Care. NCANDS

data is also used for data quality checks and context data.

The NCANDS data is also used for several performance measures published annually as part

of the ACF Annual Budget Request to Congress, which highlights certain key performance

measures. Specic measures on which ACF reports using NCANDS data include:

■ Decrease the rate of rst-time victims per 1,000 children in the population.

■ Decrease the percentage of children with substantiated or indicated reports of maltreat

ment who have a repeated substantiated or indicated report of maltreatment within six

months.

■ Improve states’ average response time between maltreatment report and investigation,

based on the median of states’ reported average response time in hours from screened-in

reports to the initiation of the investigation.

U.S. Census Bureau, Population division. (2023). Annual State Resident Population Estimates for 6 Race Groups (5 Race

Alone Groups and Two or More Races) by Age, Sex, and Hispanic Origin: April 1, 2020 to July 1, 2022; (SC-EST2022-

ALLDATA6) [data le]. Retrieved June 2023 from https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-kits/2023/population-

estimates-characteristics.html and Annual Estimates of the Resident Population by Single Year of Age and Sex for the

Puerto Rico Commonwealth: April 1, 2020 to July 1, 2022 (PRC-EST2022-SYASEX) [data le]. Retrieved June 2023 from

https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/popest/2020s-detail-puerto-rico.html

Child Maltreatment 2022

chApter 1: Introduction 4

The National Data Archive on Child Abuse and Neglect (NDACAN) was established by

the Children’s Bureau to encourage scholars to use existing child maltreatment data in

their research. NDACAN acquires data sets from national data collection efforts and from

individual researchers, prepares the data and documentation for secondary analysis, and dis

seminates the data sets to qualied researchers who apply to use the data. NDACAN houses

the NCANDS’s Child Files and Agency Files and licenses researchers to use the data sets.

NDACAN has its own strict condentiality protection procedures. Please note that NDACAN

is not the author of the Child Maltreatment report series. More information is available at

https://www.ndacan.acf.hhs.gov/index.cfm.

In addition, NCANDS data is provided to other agencies as part of federal initiatives, includ

ing Healthy People

https://health.gov/healthypeople and America’s Children: Key National

Indicators of Well-Being https://www.childstats.gov/americaschildren.

Structure of the Report

Many tables include 5 years of data to facilitate trend analyses. To accommodate the space

needed to display the child maltreatment data, population data (when applicable) may not

appear on the table and are available in Appendix C, State Characteristics. Tables with

multiple categories or years of data have numbers presented separately from percentages or

rates to make it easier to compare numbers, percentages, or rates across columns or rows.

By making changes designed to improve the functionality and practicality of the report each

year, the Children’s Bureau endeavors to increase readers’ comprehension and knowledge

about child maltreatment. Feedback regarding changes, suggestions for potential future

changes, or other comments related to the Child Maltreatment report are encouraged.

Please provide feedback to the Children’s Bureau’s Child Welfare Information Gateway at

info@childwelfare.gov. The Child Maltreatment 2022 report contains the additional chapters

listed below. Most data tables and notes discussing methodology are at the end of each

chapter:

■ Chapter 2, Reports—referrals and reports of child maltreatment.

■ Chapter 3, Children—characteristics of victims and nonvictims.

■ Chapter 4, Fatalities—fatalities that occurred as a result of maltreatment.

■ Chapter 5, Perpetrators—characteristics of perpetrators of maltreatment.

■ Chapter 6, Services—services to prevent maltreatment and to assist children and

families.

■ Chapter 7, Special Focus—analyses of specic subsets of children or data analyses

focusing on a specic topic.

The report includes the following resources:

■ Appendix A, CAPTA Data Items—the list of data items from CAPTA, most of which

states submit to NCANDS.

■ Appendix B, Glossary—common terms and acronyms used in NCANDS and their

denitions.

■ Appendix C, State Characteristics—child and adult population data and information

about states administrative structures, levels of evidence, and data les submitted to

NCANDS.

■ Appendix D, State Commentary—information about state policies, procedures, and

legislation that may affect data.

Child Maltreatment 2022

chApter 1: Introduction 5

Readers are urged to use state commentaries as a resource for additional context to the

chapters’ text and data tables. States vary in the policies, legislation, requirements, and

procedures. While the purpose of the NCANDS project is to collect nationally standardized

aggregate and case-level child maltreatment data, readers should exercise caution in making

state-to-state comparisons. Each state denes child abuse and neglect in its own statutes

and policies and the child welfare agencies determine the appropriate response for the

alleged maltreatment based on those statutes and policies. Appendix D, State Commentary

also includes phone numbers and email addresses for each NCANDS state contact person.

Readers who would like additional information about specic policies or practices should

contact the respective states.

Child Maltreatment 2022

Reports

CHAPTER 2

This chapter presents statistics about referrals alleging child abuse and neglect and how child

protective services (CPS) agencies respond to those allegations. Most agencies use a two-step

process to respond to allegations of child maltreatment: (1) screening and (2) investigation and

alternative response. A CPS agency receives an initial notication, called a referral, alleging

child maltreatment. A referral may involve more than one child. Agency hotline or intake units

conduct the screening response to determine whether a referral is appropriate for further action.

Screening

A referral may be either screened-in or screened-out. Referrals that meet CPS agency cri

teria are screened-in (and called reports) to receive an investigation response or alternative

response from the agency. Referrals that do not meet agency criteria are screened-out or

diverted from CPS to other community agencies. Reasons for screening-out a referral vary

by state policy, but may include one or more of the following:

■ Does not concern child abuse and neglect.

■ Does not contain enough information for a CPS agency response to occur.

■ Response by another agency is deemed more appropriate.

■ Children in the referral are the responsibility of another agency or jurisdiction (e.g.,

military installation or tribe).

■ Children in the referral are older than 18 years.

During FFY 2022, CPS agencies in the 52 reporting states screened-in 2,119,706 referrals

which is a 12.0 percent decrease from the 2,409,970 referrals reported by 52 states for FFY

2018. See exhibit 2–A and related notes.

Exhibit 2–A Screened-in Referral Rates, 2018–2022

Year

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

Reporting States

Child Population of

Reporting States

73,977,376

73,661,476

73,982,567

71,764,371

72,969,166

Screened-in Referrals

(Reports) from

Reporting States

2,409,970

2,383,411

2,123,934

2,008,904

2,119,706

Rate per

1,000 Children

32.6

32.4

28.7

28.0

29.0

Child Population of

52 States

73,977,376

73,661,476

73,982,567

73,356,806

72,969,166

National Estimate/

Actual Screened-in

Referrals

2,409,970

2,383,411

2,123,934

2,053,000

2,119,706

Screened-in referral data is from the Child File. e screened-in referral rate is calculated for each year by dividing the number of screened-in

referrals from reporting states by the child population in reporting states, multiplying the result by 1,000, and displayed as rounded to the tenth.

If fewer than 52 states report screened-in referrals (2021 only) then the national estimate/rounded number of screened-in referrals is a calculation

from the rate (displayed as rounded) of screened-in referrals multiplied by the national population of all 52 states. e result is divided by 1,000 and

rounded to the nearest 1,000. If 52 states report screened-in referrals, the the actual number of referrals reported by states is displayed.

hApter 2: Reports

Victims of sex trafcking may be included in an NCANDS submission for any victim who is younger than 24 years. See

chapter 3 for more information about victims of sex trafcking.

Child Maltreatment 2022

Screened-in referrals are called reports and may include more than one child. Every state

completes investigation responses for some reports. An investigation response includes

assessing the maltreatment allegation according to state law and policy. The main purpose of

the investigation is: (1) to determine whether the child was maltreated or is at risk of mal

treatment and (2) to determine if services are needed and which services to provide.

In some states, certain reports (screened-in referrals) may receive an alternative response.

This response is usually for instances where the child is at a low or moderate risk of maltreat

ment. While states vary in how they design and apply their alternative response programs,

the point is to focus on the family’s service needs to address issues which may cause future

maltreatment. See chapter 3 for more information about alternative response programs.

Twenty-one states report data on children in alternative response programs. See chapter 3 for

more information about alternative response. In the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data

System (NCANDS), both investigations and alternative responses result in a CPS nding

called a disposition.

For 2022, a national estimate of 2,156,000 referrals were screened-out. This is an 11.6 percent

increase from the 1,932,000 estimated screened-out referrals for 2018. See exhibit 2–B and

related notes. For 2022, 47 states reported both screened-in and screened-out referral data

and screened-in 49.5 percent and screened-out 50.5 percent of referrals. For those 47 states,

the percentages of screened-in referrals ranged from 16.9 to 98.7 and the percentages of

screened-out referrals ranged from 1.3 to 83.1. See table 2–1 and related notes.

Exhibit 2–B Screened-out Referral Rates, 2018–2022

Year

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

Reporting States

Child Population of

Reporting States

59,955,457

59,518,850

62,099,246

60,080,898

61,458,398

Screened-out Referrals

1,565,553

1,625,691

1,564,101

1,602,496

1,816,161

Rate per 1,000

Children

26.1

27.3

25.2

26.7

29.6

Child Population

of 52 States

73,977,376

73,661,476

73,982,567

73,356,806

72,969,166

National Estimate of

Screened-out Referrals

1,932,000

2,012,000

1,863,000

1,957,000

2,156,000

Screened-out referral data is from the Agency File. e screened-out referral rate is calculated for each year by dividing the number of screened-out

referrals from reporting states by the child population in reporting states, multiplying the result by 1,000, and displayed as rounded to the tenth.

e national estimate of screened-out referrals is based upon the rate (rounded) of referrals multiplied by the national population of all 52 states.

e result is divided by 1,000 and rounded to the nearest 1,000.

For 2022, CPS agencies received a national estimate of 4,276,000 total referrals. This is a

1.5 percent decrease from the 4,342,000 estimated total referrals received for 2018. The 2022

estimated total referrals alleging maltreatment includes approximately 7,530,000 children.

4,5

See exhibit 2–C and related notes.

Dividing the number of children with dispositions (3,732,871, from table 3–2) by the number of screened-in referrals

(2,119,706, from table 2–1) results in the average number of children included in a screened-in referral (1.8, displayed as

rounded).

The average number of children included in a screened-in referral (1.8) multiplied by the national estimate of total

referrals (4,276,000, from exhibit 2–C) results in an estimated 7,530,000 (rounded) children included in total referrals.

hApter 2: Reports 7

Child Maltreatment 2022

Exhibit 2–C Total Referrals Rate, 2018–2022

Year

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

National Estimate/ Actual

Screened-in Referrals

2,409,970

2,383,411

2,123,934

2,053,000

2,119,706

National Estimate of

Screened-out Referrals

1,932,000

2,012,000

1,863,000

1,957,000

2,156,000

National Estimate of Total

Referrals

4,342,000

4,395,000

3,987,000

4,010,000

4,276,000

Child Population of all 52

States

73,977,376

73,661,476

73,982,567

73,356,806

72,969,166

Total Referrals Rate per

1,000 Children

58.7

59.7

53.9

54.7

58.6

Screened-in referral data is from the Child File and screened-out referral data is from the Agency File.

e national estimate of total referrals is the sum of the actual reported or estimated number of screened-in referrals (from exhibit 2–A) and the

number of estimated screened-out referrals (from exhibit 2–B). e sum is rounded to the nearest 1,000. e national total referral rate is calculated

for each year by dividing the national estimate of total referrals by the child population of 52 states, multiplying the result by 1,000, and displayed as

rounded to the tenth.

As shown in exhibits 2–C and 2–D, the estimated number of total referrals received by CPS

agencies increased from FFY 2018 through 2019, decreased during FFY 2020 and began

increasing for FFYs 2021 and 2022. Also of interest is the narrowing gap between screened-

in and screened-out referrals during the previous few years. One state began reporting

screened-out referrals and according to states’ comments in Appendix D, State Commentary,

several states changed to centralized or implemented structured intakes that led to a decrease

in the percentage of referrals screened-in for a CPS response when compared to FFY 2018.

Exhibit 2–D Number of Referrals 2018–2022

The gap between the number of screened-in and screened-out referrals narrowed during the previous 5 years

Based on screened -in referral data for 52 states for FFYs 2018-2020 and 2022, and 51 states for 2021. Based on screened-out referral data for 46 states for FFYs

2018, 2019, and 2021, and 47 states for 2020 and 2022. See exhibit 2-C.

chApter 2: Reports 8

Report Sources

The report source is the role of the person who notied a CPS agency of the alleged child

abuse or neglect in a referral. Only those sources in reports (screened-in referrals) that

receive an investigation response or alternative response are submitted to NCANDS. To aid

with comparisons, report sources are grouped into three categories:

■ Professional: includes persons who encounter the child as part of their occupation, such

as child daycare providers, educators, legal and law enforcement personnel, and medical

personnel. State laws require most professionals to notify CPS agencies of suspected

maltreatment (these are known as mandated reporters).

■ Nonprofessional: includes persons who do not have a relationship with the child based

on their occupation, such as friends, relatives, and neighbors. State laws vary as to the

requirements of nonprofessionals to report suspected abuse and neglect.

■ Unclassied: includes persons who preferred to be anonymous, “other,” and unknown report

sources. States use the code of “other” for any report source that does not have an NCANDS

designated code. According to comments provided by the states, the “other” report source

category might include such sources as religious leader, Temporary Assistance for Needy

Families staff, landlord, tribal ofcial or member, camp counselor, and private agency staff.

Readers are encouraged to review Appendix D, State Commentary for additional informa

tion as to what states include in the category of “other” report source.

FFY 2022 data shows professionals submit 70.0 percent of reports. The highest percentages of

reports are from legal and law enforcement personnel (21.2%), education personnel (20.7%),

and medical personnel (11.2%). Nonprofessionals made 15.2 percent of reports with the largest

category of nonprofessional reporters being parents (5.8%), other relatives (5.5%), and friends and

neighbors (3.5%). Unclassied sources submit the remaining 14.8 percent. See exhibit 2–E and

Exhibit 2–E Report Sources, 2022

Professionals submitted the majority of screened-in referrals (reports) that received an investigation or alternative response

Data is from the Child File. Based on data from 48 states. States are excluded from this analysis if more than 15.0 percent had an unknown report source or if

of the known sources, more than 20.0 percent are reported as Other. Supporting data not shown.

Child Maltreatment 2022

chApter 2: Reports

chApter 2: Reports 10

Child Maltreatment 2022

related notes. The country has moved into a post-pandemic period, with most children going back

to in-person learning. As expected with this shift, the number and percentage of reports made by

educational personnel increased in FFY 2022 to approximately pre-pandemic levels. For example,

in FFY 2019, educational personnel made 21.0 percent of all reports for that year. The number and

percentage of reports submitted by education personnel dropped its lowest point, of 15.4 percent,

during FFY 2022.

For FFY 2022 education personnel made 20.7 percent of total reports.

CPS Response Time

States’ policies usually establish time guidelines or requirements for initiating a CPS

response. The denition of response time is the time from the CPS agency’s receipt of a

referral to the initial face-to-face contact with the alleged victim wherever this is appropriate,

or with another person who can provide information on the allegation(s). States have either

a single response timeframe for all reports or different timeframes for different types of

reports. High-priority responses are often stipulated to occur within 24 hours; lower priority

responses may occur within several days.

Based on data from 41 states, the FFY 2022 mean response time of state averages is 93 hours

or 3.9 days; the median response time of state averages is 56 hours or 2.3 days. See table 2–2

and related notes. Sixteen states reported a decrease and 25 states reported an increase in

average response times for FFY 2022 when compared with FFY 2021. One state began

reporting during FFY 2022. States that provided comments about the increase in response

times cited staff turnover or increased focus on training. Some states’ explanations for long

response times are related to the geography of the state, meaning the distance from the

agency to the alleged victim, difculties related to the terrain, and weather-related delays

during certain times of the year (for example, winter or hurricane season).

CPS Workforce and Caseload

Given the large number and the complexity of CPS responses that are conducted each year,

there is ongoing interest in the size of the workforce that performs CPS functions. In most

agencies, different groups of workers conduct screening, investigations, and alternative

responses. However, in some agencies, one worker may perform all or any combination of

those functions and may provide additional services. Due to limitations in states’ information

systems and the fact that workers may conduct more than one function in a CPS agency, the

data in the workforce and caseload tables vary among the states. The Children’s Bureau asks

states to submit data for workers as full-time equivalents when possible.

For FFY 2022, 45 states reported a total workforce of 30,750 and 41 states reported 5,036

specialized intake and screening workers. This is an increase from FFY 2021 when 43 states

reported 29,925 total workers and 40 states reported 4,750 intake and screening workers. The

number of investigation and alternative response workers—20,052—is computed by subtract

ing the reported number of intake and screening workers from the total workforce number in

the 41 reporting states.

See table 2–3 and related notes.

Using the data from the same 41 states that report on workers with specialized functions,

investigation and alternative response workers completed an average of 69 CPS responses per

worker for FFY 2022. See table 2–4 and related notes. This is an increase from the average

of 64 responses per worker for FFY 2021.

Child Maltreatment 2019 and Child Maltreatment 2021.

Child Maltreatment 2022

Exhibit and Table Notes

The following pages contain the data tables referenced in chapter 2. Specic information

about state submissions can be found in Appendix D, State Commentary. Additional informa

tion regarding the exhibits and tables is provided below.

General

During data analyses, thresholds are set to ensure data quality is balanced with the need to

report data from as many states as possible. States may be excluded from an analysis for data

quality issues. Exclusion rules are in the table notes below. Not every table has exclusion

rules.

■ Rates are per 1,000 children in the population. Rates are calculated by dividing the relevant

reported count (screened-in referrals, total referrals, etc.) by the relevant child population

count and multiplying by 1,000.

■ NCANDS uses the child population estimates that are released annually by the U.S. Census

Bureau. These population estimates are provided in Appendix C, State Characteristics.

■ National totals and calculations appear in a single row labeled National instead of separate

rows labeled total, rate, or percent.

■ The row labeled Reporting States displays the count of states that provided data for that

analysis.

■ Dashes are inserted into cells without any data.

Table 2–1 Screened-in and Screened-out Referrals, 2022

■ Screened-out referral data is from the Agency File and screened-in referral data is from the

Child File.

■ This table includes screened-in referral data from all states and screened-out referral data

from 47 reporting states.

■ The state total referral rate is based on the number of total referrals divided by the child

population (see table C–2) of states reporting both screened-in and screened-out referrals and

multiplying the result by 1,000.

Table 2–2 Average Response Time in Hours, 2018–2022

■ Data is from the Agency File.

■ The national mean of states’ reported average response time is calculated by summing the

average response times from the states and dividing the total by the number of states report

ing. The result is rounded to the nearest whole number.

■ The national median is determined by sorting the states’ averages and nding the midpoint.

Table 2–3 Child Protective Services Workforce, 2022

■ Data is from the Agency File.

■ Some states provide the total number of CPS workers, but not the specics on worker func

tions as classied by NCANDS.

■ States are excluded if the worker data is not full-time equivalents.

Table 2–4 Child Protective Services Caseload, 2022

■ Data is from the Child File and the Agency File.

■ The number of completed reports per investigation and alternative response worker for each

state was based on the number of completed reports, divided by the number of investigation

and alternative response workers, and rounded to the nearest whole number.

chApter 2: Reports 11

Child Maltreatment 2022

■ The national number of reports per worker is based on the total of completed reports for

the reporting states, divided by the total number of investigation and alternative response

workers, and rounded to the nearest whole number.

■ States are excluded if the worker data is not full-time equivalents.

■ States are excluded if they do not report intake and screening workers separately from all

workers.

chApter 2: Reports 12

Child Maltreatment 2022

Table 2–1 Screened-in and Screened-out Referrals, 2022

State

Screened-in

Referrals (Reports)

Screened-out

Referrals Total Referrals

Screened-in

Referrals (Reports)

Percent

Screened-out

Referrals Percent

Total Referrals Rate

per 1,000 Children

Alabama 26,837 348 27,185 98.7 1.3 24.5

Alaska 6,627 12,674 19,301 34.3 65.7 109.3

Arizona 44,806 39,924 84,730 52.9 47.1 53.3

Arkansas 31,923 25,416 57,339 55.7 44.3 82.3

California 192,197 189,948 382,145 50.3 49.7 44.9

Colorado 31,792 77,321 109,113 29.1 70.9 89.8

Connecticut 12,709 35,971 48,680 26.1 73.9 66.6

Delaware 5,697 15,617 21,314 26.7 73.3 102.4

District of Columbia 4,039 11,029 15,068 26.8 73.2 121.1

Florida 138,711 103,799 242,510 57.2 42.8 56.4

Georgia 52,994 70,465 123,459 42.9 57.1 49.2

Hawaii 2,897 3,365 6,262 46.3 53.7 21.1

Idaho 7,465 13,741 21,206 35.2 64.8 45.8

Illinois 94,433 - 94,433 100.0 - -

Indiana 102,320 68,765 171,085 59.8 40.2 109.0

Iowa 34,900 18,372 53,272 65.5 34.5 73.5

Kansas 23,095 22,394 45,489 50.8 49.2 65.8

Kentucky 37,894

56,974 94,868 39.9 60.1 94.4

Louisiana 17,742 31,197 48,939 36.3 63.7 46.1

Maine 9,289 17,465 26,754 34.7 65.3 107.9

Maryland 19,629 41,512 61,141 32.1 67.9 45.4

Massachusetts 39,075 42,206 81,281 48.1 51.9 60.8

Michigan 68,359 105,910 174,269 39.2 60.8 82.6

Minnesota 25,662 55,983 81,645 31.4 68.6 63.1

Mississippi 28,282 8,183 36,465 77.6 22.4 53.8

Missouri 54,386 27,791 82,177 66.2 33.8 60.2

Montana 7,301 4,296 11,597 63.0 37.0 49.6

Nebraska 13,845 23,348 37,193 37.2 62.8 78.0

Nevada 16,117 25,804 41,921 38.4 61.6 60.8

New Hampshire 10,183 8,089 18,272 55.7 44.3 72.2

New Jersey 57,068 - 57,068 100.0 - -

New Mexico 20,743 17,992 38,735 53.6 46.4 84.3

New York 148,956 - 148,956 100.0 - -

North Carolina 62,304 45,232 107,536 57.9 42.1 46.9

North Dakota 2,808 - 2,808 100.0 - -

Ohio 79,081 116,517 195,598 40.4 59.6 76.3

Oklahoma 33,529 47,899

81,428 41.2 58.8 85.4

Oregon 36,174

37,104 73,278 49.4 50.6 87.5

Pennsylvania 39,775 - 39,775 100.0 - -

Puerto Rico 7,701 6,272 13,973 55.1 44.9 27.0

Rhode Island 4,597 8,529 13,126 35.0 65.0 64.4

South Carolina 36,620 30,717 67,337 54.4 45.6 60.2

South Dakota 2,496 12,317 14,813 16.9 83.1 67.6

Tennessee 71,046 71,500 142,546 49.8 50.2 92.7

Texas 207,429 38,001 245,430 84.5 15.5 32.9

Utah 21,590 22,689 44,279 48.8 51.2 47.5

Vermont 3,457 14,981 18,438 18.7 81.3 160.7

Virginia 33,801 49,869 83,670 40.4 59.6 44.8

Washington 41,645 67,974 109,619 38.0 62.0 66.6

West Virginia 22,354 13,296 35,650 62.7 37.3 101.3

Wisconsin 23,009 52,396 75,405 30.5 69.5 60.5

Wyoming 2,317 4,969 7,286 31.8 68.2 56.0

National 2,119,70 6 1,816,161 3,935,867 - - -

Reporting States 52 47 52 - - -

National for states reporting

both screened-in and

screened-out referrals 1,776,666 1,816,161 3,592,827 49.5 50.5 N/A

chApter 2: Reports 13

Child Maltreatment 2022

Table 2–2 Average Response Time in Hours, 2018–2022

State 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Alabama 53 51 48 51 60

Alaska 423 602 576 219 223

Arizona 31 32 31 - 35

Arkansas 98 104 98 104 114

California 148 148 141 - -

Colorado 114 116 116 114 117

Connecticut 46 42 31 32 30

Delaware 354 409 296 174 380

District of Columbia 29 23 15 15 16

Florida 11 9 9 10 11

Georgia - - - - -

Hawaii 338 315 269 322 304

Idaho 60 64 62 69 107

Illinois - - - - -

Indiana 64 63 63 60 53

Iowa 52 63 55 56 53

Kansas 123 101 125 88 81

Kentucky 96 121 200 172 221

Louisiana - - - 119 208

Maine 87 94 61 58 -

Maryland - - - - -

Massachusetts -

- - - -

Michigan 34 43 42 41 39

Minnesota 79 72 84 89 41

Mississippi 31 34 30 33 37

Missouri 48 61 - 44 49

Montana - - - - -

Nebraska 136 123 121 124 150

Nevada 68 69 64 68 56

New Hampshire 129 113 92 74 64

New Jersey 18 19 18 21 22

New Mexico 63 89 73 55 50

New York 12 12 10 11 14

North Carolina - - - - -

North Dakota - - - - -

Ohio 23 24 24 24 24

Oklahoma 50 47 50 53 55

Oregon 150 165 157 166 168

Pennsylvania - - - - -

Puerto Rico - - 141 152 157

Rhode Island 32 20 19 17 19

South Carolina 38 42 33 37 39

South Dakota 51 34 33 41 42

Tennessee - - -

- 167

Texas 50 50 50 56 64

Utah 81 76 81 93 93

Vermont 94 92 107 129 126

Virginia - - - - -

Washington 38 37 35 34 32

West Virginia 238 339 309 174 147

Wisconsin 119 113 111 109 112

Wyoming 18 23 15 11 13

National Average 93 101 97 83 93

National Median 62 64 62 59 56

Reporting States 40 40 40 40 41

chApter 2: Reports 14

Child Maltreatment 2022

Table 2–3 Child Protective Services Workforce, 2022

State Intake and Screening Workers

Investigation and Alternative

Response Workers

Intake, Screening, Investigation,

and Alternative Response Workers

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

District of Columbia

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Puerto Rico

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

National

Reporting States

196

122

138

161

483

113

172

166

102

519

104

110

1,457

5,036

451

238

377

467

409

130

174

995

711

233

251

853

181

157

326

1,407

517

442

467

191

179

175

113

1,184

178

811

565

446

190

956

4,028

124

656

530

323

257

20,052

538

254

475

512

2,200

459

162

167

190

1,191

833

272

334

940

226

192

616

464

1,568

1,000

464

498

214

227

233

136

1,297

235

983

645

612

2,686

224

100

1,058

4,547

153

760

640

365

1,714

160

30,750

chApter 2: Reports 15

Child Maltreatment 2022

Table 2–4 Child Protective Services Caseload, 2022

State

Investigation and Alternative

Response Workers

Completed Reports

(Reports with a Disposition)

Completed Reports per

Investigation and Alternative

Response Worker

Alabama 451 26,837 60

Alaska 238 6,627 28

Arizona 377 44,806 119

Arkansas 467 31,923 68

California - - -

Colorado - - -

Connecticut 409 12,709 31

Delaware 130 5,697 44

District of Columbia 130 4,039 31

Florida - - -

Georgia - - -

Hawaii 52 2,897 56

Idaho 174 7,465 43

Illinois 995 94,433 95

Indiana 711 102,320 144

Iowa 233 34,900 150

Kansas 251 23,095 92

Kentucky 853 37,894 44

Louisiana 181 17,742 98

Maine 157 9,289 59

Maryland - - -

Massachusetts 326 39,075 120

Michigan 1,407 68,359 49

Minnesota 517 25,662 50

Mississippi 442 28,282 64

Missouri 467 54,386 116

Montana 191 7,301 38

Nebraska 179 13,845 77

Nevada 175 16,117 92

New Hampshire 113 10,183 90

New Jersey 1,184 57,068 48

New Mexico

178 20,743 117

New York - - -

North Carolina 811 62,304 77

North Dakota - - -

Ohio - - -

Oklahoma 565 33,529 59

Oregon 446 36,174 81

Pennsylvania - - -

Puerto Rico 190 7,701 41

Rhode Island 81 4,597 57

South Carolina - - -

South Dakota 44 2,496 57

Tennessee 956 71,046 74

Texas 4,028 207,429 51

Utah 124 21,590 174

Vermont 53 3,457 65

Virginia 656 33,801 52

Washington 530 41,645 79

West Virginia 323 22,354 69

Wisconsin 257 23,009 90

Wyoming - - -

National 20,052 1,374,826 69

Reporting States 41 41 41

chApter 2: Reports 16

chApter 3: Children 17

Child Maltreatment 2022

Children

CHAPTER 3

This chapter discusses the children who are the subjects of reports (screened-in referrals) and

the characteristics of those who are determined to be victims of abuse and neglect. The Child

Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA), (P.L. 100–294) denes child abuse and neglect

as, at a minimum:

Any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker which results in

death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation [ ]; or an act

or failure to act, which presents an imminent risk of serious harm.

The Justice for Victims of Trafcking Act (P.L. 114–22) added a legislation requirement to

include sex trafcking victims in the denition of child abuse and neglect. CAPTA recognizes

individual state authority by providing this minimum federal denition of child abuse and

neglect. Each state denes child abuse and neglect in its own statutes and policies and the

child welfare agencies determine the appropriate response for the alleged maltreatment based

on those statutes and policies. While the purpose of the National Child Abuse and Neglect

Data System (NCANDS) is to collect nationally standardized aggregate and case-level child

maltreatment data, readers should exercise caution in making state-to-state comparisons. States

map their own codes to the NCANDS codes.

In most states, the majority of reports receive an investigation. An investigation response

results in a determination (also known as a disposition) about the alleged child maltreatment.

The two most prevalent NCANDS dispositions are:

■ Substantiated: An investigation disposition that concludes the allegation of maltreatment

or risk of maltreatment is supported or founded by state law or policy. NCANDS includes

this disposition in the count of victims.

■ Unsubstantiated: An investigation disposition that concludes there is not sufcient

evidence under state law to conclude or suspect that the child was maltreated or is at risk

of being maltreated.

Less commonly used NCANDS dispositions for investigation responses include:

■ Indicated: A disposition that concludes maltreatment could not be substantiated under

state law or policy, but there is a reason to suspect that at least one child may have been

maltreated or is at risk of maltreatment. This disposition is applicable only to states that

distinguish between substantiated and indicated dispositions. NCANDS includes this

disposition in the count of victims.

■ Intentionally false: A disposition that concludes the person who made the allegation of

maltreatment knew that the allegation was not true.

Child Maltreatment 2022

■ Closed with no nding: A disposition that does not conclude with a specic nding

because the CPS response could not be completed. This disposition is often assigned when

CPS is unable to locate the alleged victim.

■ No alleged maltreatment: A disposition for a child who receives a CPS response, but

is not the subject of an allegation or any nding of maltreatment. Some states have laws

requiring all children in a household receive a CPS response if any child in the household

is the subject of a CPS response.

■ Other: States may use the category of “other” if none of the above is applicable. State

statutes also establish the level of evidence needed to determine a disposition of substanti

ated or indicated. See Appendix C, State Characteristics for each state’s level of evidence.

These statutes inuence how CPS agencies respond to the safety needs of the children who

are the subjects of child maltreatment reports.

Alternative Response

In some states, reports of maltreatment may not be investigated, but are instead assigned to

an alternative track, called alternative response, family assessment response, or differential

response. Cases receiving this response often include early determinations that the children

have a low or moderate risk of maltreatment. According to states, alternative responses usu

ally include the voluntary acceptance of CPS services and the agreement of family needs.

These cases do not result in a formal determination regarding the maltreatment allegation

or alleged perpetrator. The term disposition is used when referring to both investigation

response and alternative response. In NCANDS, alternative response is dened as:

■ Alternative response: The provision of a response other than an investigation that

determines if a child or family needs services. A determination of maltreatment is not

made and a perpetrator is not determined.

Variations in how states dene and implement alternative response programs continue. For

example, several states mention that they have an alternative response program that is not

reported to NCANDS. For some of these states, the alternative response programs provide

services for families regardless of whether there were any allegations of child maltreatment.

Some states restrict who can receive an alternative response by the type of abuse. For example,

several states mention that children who are alleged victims of sexual abuse must receive an

investigation response and are not eligible for an alternative response. Another variation in

reporting or reason why alternative response program data may not be reported to NCANDS is

that the program may not be implemented statewide. To test implementation feasibility, states

often rst pilot or phase in programs in select counties. Full implementation may depend on

the results of the initial implementation. Some states, or counties within states, implemented

an alternative response program and terminated the program a few years later. Readers are

encouraged to review Appendix D, State Commentary, for more information about these

programs.

chApter 3: Children 18

Child Maltreatment 2022

Unique and Duplicate Counts

All NCANDS reporting states have the ability to assign a unique identier, within the state,

to each child who receives a CPS response. These unique identiers enable two ways to

count children:

■ Duplicate count of children: Counting a child each time he or she is the subject of a

report. This count also is called a report-child pair. For example, a duplicate count of

children who received an investigation response or alternative response counts each child

for each CPS response.

■ Unique count of children: Counting a child once, regardless of the number of times he

or she is the subject of a report. For example, a unique count of victims by age counts the

child’s age in the rst report where the child has a substantiated or indicated disposition.

Children Who Received an Investigation or Alternative Response

(unique count of children)

For FFY 2022, 3,096,101 children received either an investigation or alternative response at a

rate of 42.4 children per 1,000 in the population. This is a 12.7 percent decrease in the number

of children from FFY 2018 when 3,546,154 children received an investigation or alternative

response at a rate of 47.9 per 1,000 children.

See exhibit 3–A and related notes.

Exhibit 3–A Child Disposition Rates, 2018–2022

Year

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

Reporting States

Child Population of

Reporting States

73,977,376

73,661,476

73,982,567

71,764,371

72,969,166

Children Who Received

an Investigation or

Alternative Response

from Reporting States

3,546,154

3,500,991

3,151,631

2,969,487

3,096,101

National

Disposition

Rate per 1,000

Children

47.9

47.5

42.6

41.4

42.4

Child Population of

all 52 States

73,977,376

73,661,476

73,982,567

73,356,806

72,969,166

National Estimate/

Actual Number of

Children Who Received

an Investigation or

Alternative Response

3,546,154

3,500,991

3,151,631

3,035,000

3,096,101

e number of children is a unique count. e national disposition rate is computed by dividing the number of reported children who received an

investigation or alternative response by the child population of reporting states and multiplying by 1,000 and displayed as rounded to the tenth.

If fewer than 52 states report data in a given year, the national estimate of children who received an investigation or alternative response is

calculated by multiplying the national disposition rate (displayed as rounded) by the child population of all 52 states and dividing by 1,000. e

result is rounded to the nearest 1,000. If 52 states report data in a given year, the number of actual children who received an investigation or

alternative response reported by states is displayed.

At the state level, the percent change from FFY 2018 to FFY 2022 ranged from a 43.2 percent

decrease to a 45.1 percent increase. State explanations for changes in the number of children

who received a CPS response across the 5 years include changes to screening and assess

ment policies, and reductions due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Please see Appendix D, State

Commentary, for state-specic information about changes. Information about a change may be

in an earlier edition of Child Maltreatment.

See table 3–1, and related notes.

Children Who Received an Investigation or Alternative Response

by Disposition (duplicate count of children)

For FFY 2022, 3,732,871 children (duplicate count) are the subjects of reports (screened-in

referrals). A child may be a victim in one report and a nonvictim in another report, and in this

analysis, the child is counted both times. There are 16.1 percent of children who are classied

The national percent change was calculated using the national actual number of children who received a CPS response for

FFYs 2018 and 2022.

hApter 3: Children 19

Child Maltreatment 2022

as victims with dispositions of substantiated (14.8%) and indicated (1.3%).

The remaining

children are not determined to be victims or received an alternative response. See table 3–2,

exhibit 3–B, and related notes.

More than 16 percent of children received a disposition of substantiated or indicated and are counted as

maltreatment victims

Based on data from 52 states. See table 3–2.

Number of Child Victims (unique count of child victims)

In NCANDS, a victim is dened as:

■ Victim: A child for whom the state determined at least one maltreatment was substantiated

or indicated; and a disposition of substantiated or indicated was assigned for a child in a

report. This includes a child who died and the death was conrmed to be the result of child

abuse and neglect. A child may be a victim in one report and a nonvictim in another report.

For FFY 2022, 52 states reported 558,899 victims of child abuse and neglect. This equates

to a national rate of 7.7 victims per 1,000 children in the population. This is a 20.0 percent

decrease from the FFY 2018 actual number of victims 698,189 reported by 52 states. The

largest number of victims was for FFY 2018, the number of victims has been decreasing since

that year. (See exhibit 3–C and related notes.) States have different policies about what is

considered child maltreatment, the type of CPS responses (alternative and investigation), and

different levels of evidence required to substantiate an abuse allegation, all or some of which

may account for variations in victimization rates.

As discussed above, children with alternative response dispositions are not considered

maltreatment victims and do not have perpetrators. Children with indicated dispositions

are considered maltreatment victims. Readers are encouraged to read Appendix C, State

Characteristics and Appendix D, State Commentary, for more information. Information

about a change may be in an earlier edition of Child Maltreatment.

Beginning with FFY 2020, North Carolina recoded the disposition of children who would have previously received an

alternative response victim disposition to an indicated disposition. As discussed above, children with alternative response

dispositions are not considered maltreatment victims and do not have perpetrators. Children with indicated dispositions

are considered maltreatment victims.

Exhibit 3–B Children Who Received an Investigation or Alternative Response by

Disposition, 2022

chApter 3: Children 20

Exhibit 3–C Child Victimization Rates, 2018–2022

Year

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

Reporting States

Child Population of

Reporting States

73,977,376

73,661,476

73,982,567

71,764,371

72,969,166

Victims from

Reporting States

698,189

677,099

619,480

588,630

558,899

National

Victimization

Rate per 1,000

Children

9.4

9.2

8.4

8.2

7.7

Child Population of

all 52 States

73,977,376

73,661,476

73,982,567

73,356,806

72,969,166

National Estimate/

Actual Number of

Victims

698,189

677,099

619,480

602,000

558,899

e number of victims is a unique count. e national victimization rate is calculated by dividing the number of victims from reporting states by the

child population of reporting states, multiplying by 1,000, and displayed as rounded to the tenth.

If fewer than 52 states report data in a given year, the national estimate/rounded number of victims is calculated by multiplying the national

victimization rate (displayed as rounded) by the child population of all 52 states and dividing by 1,000. e result is rounded to the nearest 1,000.

If 52 states report data in a given year, the number of actual victims reported by states is displayed.

At the state level, the percent change of victims of abuse and neglect ranges from a 48.0

percent decrease to a 14.5 percent increase from FFY 2018 to 2022. The FFY 2022 state

victimization rates range from a low of 1.6 to a high of 16.5 per 1,000 children. See table 3–3

and related notes. Comments about changes to legislation, child welfare policy, and practice

that may contribute to an increase or decrease in the number of victims are provided by states

in Appendix D, State Commentary. Reasons for differences across the 5 years as provided by

states include: one state changed its dispositions from alternative response victims to indicated,

several states resolved investigation or assessment backlogs, several states instituted new

screening and intake tools, two states completed and one state began their alternative response

implementation,

and a number of states cited the multiyear effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Information about a change may be in an earlier edition of Child Maltreatment.

Based on data from 52 states, the FFY 2022 rate of rst-time victims is 5.4 per 1,000 chil

dren in the population. Seventy percent of all victims are rst-time victims. States use the

disposition date of prior substantiated or indicated maltreatments to determine whether the

victim is a rst-time victim.

See table 3–4 and related notes.

Child Victim Demographics (unique count of child victims)

The youngest children are the most vulnerable to maltreatment. More than one-quarter

(27.3%) of victims are in the age range of birth through 2 years old. Infant victims younger

than 1 year are 14.7 percent of all victims. The victimization rate is highest for infant victims

younger than 1 year at 22.2 per 1,000 children in the population of the same age, which is

2.2 times the rate of victims who are 1 year at 9.9 per 1,000 children. Victims who are 2

or 3 years old have victimization rates of 9.3 and 8.8 victims per 1,000 children of those

respective ages in the population. Readers may notice some states have lower rates across age

groups than other states. The states with lower rates may assign low-risk cases to alternative

response or have other state policies or programs in place for maltreatment allegations. In

general, the rate of victimization decreases with the child’s age. See table 3–5, exhibit 3–D,

and related notes.

The percentages of child victims by sex are 52.5 percent for girls and 47.2 percent for boys. The

sex is unknown for 0.3 percent of victims. The FFY 2022 victimization rate for girls is 8.2 per

1,000 girls in the population, which is higher than the rate for boys at 7.1 per 1,000 boys in the

population. See table 3–6 and related notes.

Nebraska, Texas, and New Mexico.

Child Maltreatment 2022

chApter 3: Children 21

Exhibit 3–D Victims by Age, 2022

The youngest children are the most vulnerable to maltreatment

Based on data from 52 states. See table 3–5.

Most victims are one of three races or ethnicities—White 41.6 percent, Hispanic 23.7 percent,

and Black or African-American 21.7 percent. The racial distributions for all children in the

population are 48.8 percent White, 26.0 percent Hispanic, and 13.9 percent Black or African-

American. See table C–3 and related notes. For FFY 2022, American Indian or Alaska Native

children have the highest rate of victimization at 14.3 per 1,000 children in the population of the

same race or ethnicity and Black or African-American children have the second highest rate at

12.1 per 1,000 children in the population of the same race or ethnicity. See table 3–7 and related

notes.

Maltreatment Types

NCANDS collects all maltreatment type allegations, however only those maltreatments with

a disposition of substantiated or indicated are included in the Child Maltreatment report. The

Justice for Victims of Trafcking Act of 2015 includes an amendment to CAPTA by adding a

requirement to report the number of sex trafcking victims. States are instructed to include sex

trafcking by caregivers and noncaregivers and began reporting this data with their FFY 2018

data submissions to NCANDS.

Focus on Maltreatment Categories

(unique count of child victims and duplicate count of maltreatment types)

A child may be determined to be a victim multiple times within the same FFY and up to four

different maltreatment types in each victim report. A child also may be determined to be a

victim of the same maltreatment type multiple times in the same FFY, just not in the same

report. For example, a child may be the victim of neglect twice in the same year, but the neglect

maltreatment type cannot be present twice in the same victim report.

The Children’s Bureau Information Memoranda ACYF-CB-IM-15-05 dated July 16, 2015,

https://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb/policy-guidance/im-15-05

Child Maltreatment 2022

chApter 3: Children 22

Child Maltreatment 2022

chApter 3: Children 23

In this analysis, a victim who has more than one type of maltreatment is counted once per type.

This answers the question of how many different types of maltreatment do victims have, rather

than how many occurrences of each type, for example:

■ A victim with three reports of neglect is counted once in neglect.

■ A victim with one report with both neglect and physical abuse is counted once in neglect

and once in physical abuse.

■ A victim with two separate reports in the same FFY, one with neglect and a second report

with physical abuse, is counted once in neglect and once in physical abuse.

The FFY 2022 data shows three-quarters (74.3%) of victims experience neglect, 17.0 percent

are physically abused, 10.6 percent are sexually abused, and 0.2 percent are sex trafcked.

In addition, 3.4 percent of victims are reported with the “other” type of maltreatment. States

may code any maltreatment as “other” if it does not t in one of the NCANDS categories.

States with larger than average numbers or percentages of victims with the NCANDS “other”

maltreatment type may map state categories of threatened harm, threatened abuse, and threat

of family violence to the NCANDS “other” category.

See table 3–8 and related notes. A few

states have policies about conducting investigations into specic maltreatment types. Readers

are encouraged to review states’ comments (appendix D) about what is included in the

“other” maltreatment type category and for additional information on state policies related to

maltreatment types. See chapter 7 for special focus analyses on maltreatment types.

Perpetrator Relationship

(unique count of child victims and duplicate count of relationships)

In this section, data is analyzed by relationship of victims to their perpetrators. A victim

may be maltreated multiple times by the same perpetrator or by different combinations of

perpetrators (e.g., mother alone, mother and nonparent(s), two parents, etc.). This analysis

counts every combination of relationships for each victim in each report and, therefore, the

percentages total more than 100.0 percent.

The FFY 2022 data shows 89.0 percent of victims are maltreated by one or both parents.

The parent(s) could have acted together, acted alone, or acted with up to two other people to

maltreat the child. The parent categories with the largest percentages are victims maltreated

by a mother acting alone (37.4%), victims maltreated by a father acting alone (24.5%), and

victims maltreated by both parents (19.2%). See table 3–9 and related notes.

Perpetrators who are not the victim’s parent maltreated 15.8 percent of victims. The largest

categories in the nonparent group are relative(s) (5.8%), unmarried partner(s) of parent (3.7%),

and “other(s)” (3.4%). The NCANDS category of “other(s)” perpetrator relationship includes

any relationship that does not map to one of the NCANDS relationship categories. According

to states’ commentary, this category includes nonrelated adult, non-related child, foster

sibling, babysitter, household staff, clergy, and school personnel. See appendix D for more

information on what states include as “other” perpetrator relationship.

Florida, Hawaii, and Oregon.

Child Maltreatment 2022

chApter 3: Children 24

Risk Factors

Risk factors are characteristics of a child or caregiver that may increase the likelihood of child

maltreatment. NCANDS collects data for 9 child risk factors and 12 caregiver risk factors.

Risk factors can be difcult to accurately assess and measure, and therefore may go undetected

among many children and caregivers. Some states may not have the resources to gather infor

mation from other sources or agencies or the ability to collect or store certain information in

their child welfare system. In addition, some risk factors must be clinically diagnosed, which

may not occur during the investigation or alternative response. If the case is closed prior to

the diagnosis, the CPS agency may not be notied and the information will not be reported to

NCANDS. Caregivers with these risk factors who are included in each analysis may or may not

be the perpetrators responsible for the maltreatment. For FFY 2022, data is analyzed for care

giver risk factors with the following NCANDS denitions. Please see Appendix B, Glossary for

these and additional NCANDS denitions:

■ Alcohol abuse (caregiver): The compulsive use of alcohol that is not of a temporary nature.

■ Domestic violence (caregiver): Any abusive, violent, coercive, forceful, or threatening act

or word inicted by one member of a family or household on another. In NCANDS, the

caregiver may be the perpetrator or the victim of the domestic violence.

■ Drug abuse (caregiver): The compulsive use of drugs that is not of a temporary nature.

■ Inadequate housing: A risk factor related to substandard, overcrowded, or unsafe housing

conditions, including homelessness.

As not every state is able to report on every caregiver risk factor, the national percentages are

calculated only on the number of victims in states reporting each individual risk factor. Several

caregiver risk factors are not included in the FFY 2022 analysis that were included in previous

analyses due to data quality concerns. The largest percentages of victims with caregiver risk

factors are those reported with domestic violence and drug abuse. In 39 reporting states, 95,794

victims (23.8%) have the drug abuse caregiver risk factor and in 35 reporting states, 99,255

victims (26.5%) have the domestic violence caregiver factor. See table 3–10 and related notes.

Reporting Infants with Prenatal Substance Exposure Data to

NCANDS

CAPTA Section 106(d) Annual State Data Reports 18 (A) requests a count of infants with

prenatal substance exposure (IPSE). To be included in the count, a child must meet the follow

ing conditions as dened by NCANDS data elements:

■ Infant: the child must be in the age range of birth to 1 year old.

■ Referred to CPS by health care provider: the child must have the medical personnel report

source.

■ Born with and identied as being affected by substance abuse or withdrawal symptoms:

the child must have the alcohol abuse, drug abuse, or both alcohol and drug abuse child risk

factors.

The Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act (CARA) of 2016 amended CAPTA by adding a requirement to report the

number of infants with prenatal substance exposure (IPSE), the number of IPSE with a plan of safe care, and the number

of IPSE with a referral to appropriate services. States began reporting the new elds with their FFY 2018 NCANDS

submissions. Children’s Bureau Program Instruction ACYF-CB-PI-17-02 dated January 17, 2018,

https://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb/policy-guidance/pi-17-02.

Child Maltreatment 2022

chApter 3: Children 25

The legislation does not require the infants to be considered victims of maltreatment solely

based on the substance exposure; and drug abuse includes both legal and illegal drugs.

NCANDS uses the following denitions when discussing IPSE

■ Alcohol abuse (child risk factor): The compulsive use of alcohol that is not of a temporary

nature, includes Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder, and exposure

to alcohol during pregnancy.

■ Drug abuse (child risk factor): The compulsive use of drugs that is not of a temporary

nature, includes infants exposed to drugs during pregnancy.

■ Screened-in IPSE: Indicates the child is included in the state’s Child File. NCANDS

uses the existing elds of age, report source, and alcohol abuse and drug abuse child risk

factors to determine the count. These are children who were screened-in and were the

subjects of either an investigation or alternative response.

■ Screened-out IPSE: Indicates the child is included in the state’s Agency File. These

are children who were screened-out either because they did not meet the child welfare

agency’s criteria for a CPS response or because, in some states, there are special programs

outside of CPS for handling substance abuse.

■ Total IPSE: The sum of screened-in IPSE and screened-out IPSE.

Number of Infants with Prenatal Substance Exposure

(unique count of child victims)

FFY 2022 data shows 45,756 infants in 50 states being referred to CPS agencies as infants

with prenatal substance exposure. See table 3–11 and related notes. While the number of states

reporting IPSE for FFY 2022 is an increase from the 49 states that reported for FFY 2021,

the number of IPSE children decreased from 49,194 in FFY 2021 to 45,756 in FFY 2022. The

difference is mostly due to fewer IPSE children being screened-in to CPS for an investigation

or alternative response.

For FFY 2022, the majority (36,247 or 79.2%) of IPSE are screened-in to CPS to receive either

an investigation or alternative response. This is a decrease from FFY 2021 when 47 states

screened-in 40,799 IPSE. State explanations for the decrease in screened-in IPSE mostly refer

to better reporting. Of the screened-in IPSE, 82.4 percent have the drug abuse child risk factor,

0.5 percent have the alcohol abuse child risk factor and 17.0 percent have the alcohol and drug

abuse child risk factor.

For FFY 2022, thirty-six states reported one-fth (20.8%) of IPSE were screened-out. Some

states have policies and legislation prohibiting certain referrals from being screened-out and

some states have special programs or agencies specically for certain referrals. For example,

a state may routinely screen-out IPSE referrals to a special agency or program unless there

are additional maltreatment allegations that require an investigation. See Appendix D, State

Commentary, for more information about states’ screening policies and additional information

about states’ capabilities to collect and report data on these IPSE children.

CAPTA uses terms infants affected by substance abuse, prenatal drug exposure, infants affected by withdrawal symptoms,

and Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder. In NCANDS, the term infants with prenatal substance exposure includes all of the

terms used by CAPTA.

Some states are not able to collect and report alcohol and drug abuse child risk factors separately and NCANDS guidance

is to report both risk factors for the same children. For this analysis, children with both risk factors are counted once in

the category screened-in IPSE with alcohol abuse and drug abuse child risk factor.

Child Maltreatment 2022

Screened-in Infants with Prenatal Substance Exposure Who Have a

Plan of Safe Care

(unique count of children)

CAPTA Section 106(d) Annual State Data Reports 18 (B) asks for the number of screened-

in IPSE who also have a plan of safe care as developed under subsection (b)(2)(B)(iii). For

FFY 2022, 33 states reported 23,781 screened-in IPSE (69.5%) have a plan of safe care.

See table 3–12 and related notes. This is an improvement in the number of states reporting, but

a decrease in the number of screened-in IPSE with a plan of safe care, which was 26,904 from

31 states in FFY 2021.

Screened-in Infants with Prenatal Substance Exposure Who Have a

Referral to Appropriate Services

(unique count of children)

CAPTA Section 106(d) Annual State Data Reports 18 (C) asks for the number of screened-in

IPSE who also had a referral to services as described under subsection (b)(2)(B)(iii). Thirty-

two states reported 22,883 screened-in IPSE (68.4%) have a referral to appropriate services.

See table 3–13 and related notes. What is considered an appropriate service is up to each state’s

determination and may depend on the needs of the specic case. According to comments

provided by the states, some examples of services that these children and families were referred

to include mental and behavioral health, foster care, substance abuse assessment and treat

ment, and other programs that facilitate early identication of at-risk children and caregivers

and links them with early intervention services, public health services, and community-based

resources.

Exhibit and Table Notes

The following pages contain the data tables referenced in chapter 3. Specic information

about state submissions can be found in Appendix D, State Commentary. Additional infor

mation regarding the exhibits and tables is provided below.

General

During data analyses, thresholds are set to ensure data quality is balanced with the need to

report data from as many states as possible. States may be excluded from an analysis for data

quality issues. Exclusion rules are listed in the individual table notes below. Not every table

has an exclusion rule or notes.

■ The data for all tables are from the Child File unless otherwise noted.

■ Rates are per 1,000 children in the population. Rates are calculated by dividing the relevant

reported count (child, victim, rst-time victim, etc.) by the child population count (children,

by age, etc.) and multiplying by 1,000.

■ Unless otherwise noted, the number of children and victims are unique counts.

■ The count of victims includes children with dispositions of substantiated or indicated.

■ Children with dispositions of alternative response victims are not included in the victim

count.

■ NCANDS uses the child population estimates that are released annually by the U.S. Census

Bureau. These population estimates are provided in Appendix C, State Characteristics.

■ The row labeled Reporting States displays the count of states that provided data for that

analysis.

■ National totals and calculations appear in a single row labeled National instead of separate

rows labeled total, rate, or percent.

■ Dashes are inserted into cells without any data.

chApter 3: Children 26

Child Maltreatment 2022

Table 3–1 Children Who Received an Investigation or Alternative Response,

2018–2022

■ The percent change was calculated by subtracting 2018 data from 2022 data, dividing the

result by 2018 data, and multiplying by 100.

Table 3–2 Children Who Received an Investigation or Alternative Response by

Disposition, 2022

■ The number of children is a duplicate count.

■ Many states conduct investigations for all children in a family when any child is the subject

of an allegation. In these states, a disposition of “no alleged maltreatment” is assigned to

siblings who are not the subjects of an allegation and are not found to be victims. These

children may receive an alternative response or an investigation.

Table 3–3 Child Victims, 2018–2022

■ The percent change is calculated by subtracting 2018 data from 2022 data, dividing the result

by 2018 data, and multiplying by 100.

Table 3–4 First-time Victims, 2022

■ States are instructed to check whether there was a disposition date of substantiated or

indicated associated with the same child prior to the disposition date of the current victim

report. States may have different abilities and criteria for how far back they check for rst-

time victims.

Table 3–5 Victims by Age, 2022

■ There are no population data for unknown age and, therefore, no rates.

Table 3–6 Victims by Sex, 2022

■ There are no population data for children with unknown sex and, therefore, no rates.

Table 3–7 Victims by Race or Ethnicity, 2022

■ Counts associated with each racial group are exclusive and do not include Hispanic ethnicity.

■ Only those states that have both race and ethnicity population data are included in this

analysis.

■ States are excluded from this analysis if more than 30.0 percent of victims are reported with

an unknown or missing race or ethnicity.

Table 3–8 Maltreatment Types of Victims (Duplicate Categories), 2022

■ The number of victims is a unique count and the number of maltreatment types is a

duplicate count.

■ This analysis counts victims with one or more maltreatment types but counts them only

once regardless of the number of times the child is reported as a victim of the maltreat

ment type.

■ A child may be a victim of more than one type of maltreatment and therefore the maltreat

ment type is a duplicate count.

chApter 3: Children 27

Child Maltreatment 2022

Table 3–9 Victims by Relationship to Their Perpetrators, 2022

■ The number of relationships is a duplicate count, and the number of victims is a unique

count. Percentages are calculated against the unique count of victims and total to more than

100.0 percent.

■ In NCANDS, a child victim may have up to three perpetrators. A few states’ systems do

not have the capability of collecting and reporting data for all three perpetrator elds. More

information may be found in Appendix D.

■ States are excluded from this analysis if more than 25.0 percent of perpetrators are reported

with an unknown or missing relationship.

■ States are excluded from this analysis if fewer than 85 percent of victims have one or more

perpetrators.

■ The relationship categories listed under nonparent perpetrator include any perpetrator

relationship that was not identied as an adoptive parent, a biological parent, or a stepparent.

■ The two parents of known sex category can include mother and father, two mothers, and two

fathers.

■ The two parents of known sex with nonparent category can include mother, father, and

nonparent; two mothers and nonparent; and two fathers and nonparent.

■ One or more parents of unknown sex can include up to three parents in any combination

of known and unknown sex. The parent(s) could have acted alone, together, or with a

nonparent.

■ Nonparent perpetrators counted in combination with parents (e.g., mother and nonparent(s))

are not also counted in the individual categories listed under nonparent.

■ Multiple nonparental perpetrators that are in the same category are counted within that

category. For example, two child daycare providers are counted as child daycare providers.

■ Multiple nonparental perpetrators that are in different categories are counted in more than

one nonparental perpetrator.

■ Some states are not able to collect and report on group home and residential facility staff

perpetrators due to system limitations or jurisdictional issues

Table 3–10 Victims with Caregiver Risk Factors, 2022

■ As states have varying abilities to report on caregiver risk factors, the national percentages

are calculated only on those states able to report the specic risk factor as shown in the

column labelled Victims in Reporting States.

■ A victim is counted only once if there is more than one report in which the victim is reported

with the caregiver risk factor.

■ The counts on this table are exclusive and follow a hierarchy rule. If a victim is reported both

with and without the caregiver risk factor, the victim is counted once with the caregiver risk

factor.

■ The category Any Caregiver Disability is the combination of six disability types. States

are excluded if fewer than 2.0 percent of victims are reported with the total combined

disabilities.

■ States are excluded from this analysis if fewer than 2.0 percent of victims are reported with

each specic caregiver risk factor.

■ States are included in this analysis if they are not able to differentiate between alcohol abuse

and drug abuse caregiver risk factors and reported both risk factors for the same children in

both caregiver risk factor categories.

chApter 3: Children 28

Child Maltreatment 2022

Table 3–11 Infants with Prenatal Substance Exposure by Submission Type,

2022

■ Data is from the Child File and Agency File.

■ States may be excluded from the count of screened-in referrals for incomplete reporting

Table 3–12 Screened-in Infants with Prenatal Substance Exposure Who Have a

Plan of Safe Care, 2022

■ This analysis uses a hierarchy, if a screened-in IPSE is reported with and without a plan of

safe care, the infant is counted once with the plan of safe care.

Table 3–13 Screened-in Infants with Prenatal Substance Exposure Who Have a

Referral to Appropriate Services, 2022

■ This analysis uses a hierarchy, if a screened-in IPSE is reported with and without the referral

to appropriate services, the infant is counted once with the referral to appropriate services.

chApter 3: Children 29

Child Maltreatment 2022

Table 3–1 Children Who Received an Investigation or Alternative Response,

2018–2022

(continues next page)

State 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Percent Change from

2018 to 2022

Alabama 38,634 39,335 36,931 36,139 36,538 -5.4

Alaska 12,749 14,429 15,460 10,816 9,799 -23.1

Arizona 87,862 82,336 77,146 - 54,687 -37.8

Arkansas 58,823 57,339 54,775 52,887 55,674 -5.4

California 360,040 343,536 306,919 271,487 292,782 -18.7

Colorado 44,698 45,849 43,483 43,197 41,159 -7.9

Connecticut 19,693 18,669 14,135 13,416 15,561 -21.0

Delaware 12,180 12,373 10,672 10,006 12,014 -1.4

District of Columbia 14,334 12,315 8,651 7,824 8,211 -42.7

Florida 292,518 285,141 251,149 256,060 251,757 -13.9

Georgia 164,147 157,705 121,595 106,948 104,979 -36.0

Hawaii 3,817 4,378 4,938 4,845 5,193 36.0

Idaho 12,825 13,385 12,769 12,850 10,666 -16.8

Illinois 146,141 151,490 140,762 142,309 158,622 8.5

Indiana 161,340 147,872 139,343 135,799 123,644 -23.4

Iowa 38,631 38,253 35,469 38,953 38,790 0.4

Kansas 27,816 32,877 29,552 26,134 24,366 -12.4

Kentucky 83,902 77,512 67,066 55,547 52,816 -37.1

Louisiana

26,064 27,366 23,553 20,623 23,633 -9.3

Maine 11,031 16,288 18,871 17,524 16,008 45.1

Maryland 32,244 32,196 29,852 21,367 23,038 -28.6

Massachusetts 76,244 72,962 62,829 65,918 65,920 -13.5

Michigan 158,673 161,058 129,271 127,759 138,996 -12.4

Minnesota 39,581 38,690 36,274 32,919 32,958 -16.7

Mississippi 40,682 38,838 33,450 34,732 36,698 -9.8

Missouri 81,059 67,322 62,059 59,129 60,422 -25.5

Montana 15,300 15,400 15,528 13,484 11,158 -27.1

Nebraska 24,476 25,312 25,964 29,093 27,634 12.9

Nevada 30,220 29,439 27,980 29,351 29,963 -0.9

New Hampshire 13,888 12,798 13,336 11,816 12,742 -8.3

New Jersey 77,661 78,741 70,179 66,321 74,766 -3.7

New Mexico 25,774 26,040 25,980 23,281 24,529 -4.8

New York 218,684 216,016 194,127 189,559 192,737 -11.9

North Carolina 124,647 124,639 115,472 109,236 113,162 -9.2

North Dakota 7,295 6,597 5,570 4,598 4,764 -34.7

Ohio 110,550 113,071 104,750 106,012 102,858 -7.0

Oklahoma 58,958 57,504 58,379 55,518 51,985 -11.8

Oregon

50,319

55,063 48,161 43,312 47,610 -5.4

Pennsylvania 42,295 41,062 35,447 34,167 39,414 -6.8

Puerto Rico 15,053 15,044 12,510 13,646 12,956 -13.9

Rhode Island 10,841 9,334 8,062 6,967 6,160 -43.2

South Carolina 82,617 84,872 63,067 63,843 65,470 -20.8

South Dakota 3,761 4,039 4,032 3,800 3,987 6.0

Tennessee 87,384 94,946 86,109 85,534 88,309 1.1

Texas 281,562 278,004 263,493 278,119 289,231 2.7

Utah 26,076 26,926 25,860 25,642 26,819 2.8

Vermont 4,485 4,429 3,178 2,902 3,790 -15.5

Virginia 49,156 49,338 44,902 44,037 44,896 -8.7

Washington 46,131 49,174 47,375 43,474 45,834 -0.6

West Virginia 52,276 53,491 49,128 46,595 46,198 -11.6

Wisconsin 36,103 35,105 32,062 30,191 30,556 -15.4

Wyoming 4,914 5,093 4,006 3,801 3,642 -25.9

National 3,546,154 3,500,991 3,151,631 2,969,487 3,096,101 N/A

Reporting States 52 52 52 51 52 -

chApter 3: Children 30

Child Maltreatment 2022

Table 3–1 Children Who Received an Investigation or Alternative Response,

2018–2022

State

2018 Rate per 1,000

Children

2019 Rate per 1,000

Children

2020 Rate per 1,000

Children

2021 Rate per 1,000

Children

2022 Rate per 1,000

Children

Alabama 35.4 36.1 33.2 32.6 32.9

Alaska 69.6 80.0 86.3 60.9 55.5

Arizona 53.6 50.2 48.4 - 34.4

Arkansas 83.6 81.8 78.6 76.0 79.9

California 40.1 38.7 34.8 31.4 34.4

Colorado 35.4 36.5 34.9 35.1 33.9

Connecticut 26.8 25.7 19.0 18.2 21.3

Delaware 59.7 60.6 51.6 48.4 57.7

District of Columbia 113.1 96.2 69.1 63.1 66.0

Florida 69.2 67.3 59.4 60.5 58.6

Georgia 65.4 62.9 48.3 42.7 41.8

Hawaii 12.6 14.6 16.1 16.1 17.5

Idaho 28.8 29.9 28.2 27.9 23.0

Illinois 51.1 53.8 49.7 51.3 58.3

Indiana 102.6 94.2 88.2 86.3 78.8

Iowa 52.9 52.5 48.4 53.5 53.5

Kansas 39.4 46.9 42.0 37.6 35.3

Kentucky 83.2 77.2 66.3 55.1 52.6

Louisiana 23.7 25.1 21.7 19.2 22.3

Maine 44.0 65.3 75.2 70.3 64.6

Maryland 24.0 24.1

21.8 15.8 17.1

Massachusetts 55.8

53.9 45.8 48.8 49.3

Michigan 73.3 75.1 60.0 60.0 65.9

Minnesota 30.4 29.7 27.6 25.3 25.5

Mississippi 57.5 55.5 48.4 50.8 54.1

Missouri 58.8 49.0 45.1 43.2 44.3

Montana 66.8 67.3 67.1 58.0 47.7

Nebraska 51.4 53.2 53.9 60.7 58.0

Nevada 43.9 42.4 40.4 42.5 43.4

New Hampshire 53.8 50.0 52.0 46.4 50.4

New Jersey 39.7 40.5 34.6 33.1 37.5

New Mexico 53.4 54.6 54.5 49.8 53.4

New York 53.7 53.6 46.6 46.6 48.3

North Carolina 54.1 54.1 50.6 47.9 49.3

North Dakota 40.9 36.5 30.2 25.1 26.1

Ohio 42.6 43.8 40.3 41.1 40.1

Oklahoma 61.7 60.3 61.5 58.4 54.5

Oregon 57.9 63.7 55.9 50.9 56.9

Pennsylvania 15.9 15.6 13.3 12.9 15.0

Puerto Rico 25.4 26.3 22.1 25.0 25.0

Rhode Island 52.6 45.8 38.5 33.7 30.2

South Carolina 74.5 76.2 57.3 57.8 58.6

South Dakota 17.4 18.5 18.6 17.5

18.2

Tennessee 57.9 62.8 56.4

56.0 57.4

Texas 38.1 37.5 35.6 37.6 38.8

Utah 28.0 29.0 27.6 27.4 28.8

Vermont 38.8 38.7 27.1 25.0 33.0

Virginia 26.3 26.4 23.8 23.5 24.0

Washington 27.8 29.6 28.3 26.2 27.8

West Virginia 143.2 148.4 137.1 131.3 131.3

Wisconsin 28.3 27.7 25.2 24.0 24.5

Wyoming 36.5 38.1 30.2 28.9 28.0

National 47.9 47.5 42.6 41.4 42.4

Reporting States - - - - -

chApter 3: Children 31

Child Maltreatment 2022

Table 3–2 Children Who Received an Investigation or Alternative Response

by Disposition, 2022

(continues next page)

State Substantiated Indicated Alternative Response Unsubstantiated Intentionally False

Alabama 11,941 - - 26,247 -

Alaska 2,794 - - 8,556 -

Arizona 5,058 8,482 - 49,607 -

Arkansas 9,363 - 6,873 27,212 -

California 53,973 - - 245,328 -

Colorado 10,572 - 16,053 22,410 -

Connecticut 5,394 - - 12,578 -

Delaware 1,104 - 2,939 5,715 -

District of Columbia 1,689 - - 4,547 -

Florida 25,697 - - 194,956 -

Georgia 10,820 - 37,000 31,402 -

Hawaii 1,342 - - 4,482 -

Idaho 2,065 - - 10,069 779

Illinois 37,077 - - 115,447 434

Indiana 20,184 - - 145,902 -

Iowa 13,150 - 11,402 31,642 -

Kansas 1,974 - - 29,044 -

Kentucky 13,492 - - 44,786 -

Louisiana 7,861 - - 16,783 -

Maine 2,575 1,519 - 10,255 -

Maryland 4,389 2,691 12,550 6,017 -

Massachusetts 24,582

- - 24,517 -

Michigan 14,195 10,721 - 80,570 3

Minnesota 5,521 - 22,741 8,256 -

Mississippi 9,797 - - 33,808 -

Missouri 4,004 - 48,411 20,112 -

Montana 2,895 18 - 10,136 -

Nebraska 2,126 - 7,556 14,032 -

Nevada 6,273 - 722 19,248 -

New Hampshire 1,053 - - 13,636 -

New Jersey 3,217 - - 86,159 -

New Mexico 6,616 - - 25,739 -

New York 57,297 - 17,172 167,144 -

North Carolina 7,730 17,073 86,414 18,368 -

North Dakota 1,154 - - 3,876 -

Ohio 17,037 7,640 50,675 42,691 -

Oklahoma 14,240 - 911 37,848 -

Oregon 11,397 - - 40,629 -

Pennsylvania 5,201 - - 34,574 -

Puerto Rico 4,957 170 - 6,141 87

Rhode Island 2,601 - - 4,325 -

South Carolina 15,680 - - 42,928 -

South Dakota 1,546 - - 2,742 -

Tennessee 6,351 673 68,276

20,332 -

Texas 55,942 - 50,458 191,942 -

Utah 9,253 - - 20,176 21

Vermont 761 - 1,619 2,172 22

Virginia 4,694 - 36,307 8,601 -

Washington 3,995 - 34,284 20,274 55

West Virginia 5,740 - - 30,506 -

Wisconsin 4,259 - 4,307 27,583 -

Wyoming 851 - 3,094 369 -

National 553,479 48,987 519,764 2,102,419 1,401

Reporting States 14.8 1.3 13.9 56.3 0.0

National States 52 9 21 52 7

chApter 3: Children 32

Child Maltreatment 2022

chApter 3: Children 33

Table 3–2 Children Who Received an Investigation or Alternative Response

by Disposition, 2022

State Closed with No Finding No Alleged Maltreatment Other Unknown Total Children

Alabama 1,297 - - 85 39,570

Alaska 988 - - - 12,338

Arizona 2,024 - - - 65,171

Arkansas 1,362 20,293 - - 65,103

California - 50,393 - - 349,694

Colorado - - - 361 49,396

Connecticut - - - - 17,972

Delaware 2,358 1,502 - - 13,618

District of Columbia 190 3,261 - 4 9,691

Florida - 80,920 - 844 302,417

Georgia - 44,860 - - 124,082

Hawaii - - - 39 5,863

Idaho - - - - 12,913

Illinois - 55,814 - - 208,772

Indiana - - - - 166,086

Iowa - - - 11 56,205

Kansas 378 - - - 31,396

Kentucky 1,495 - 3,161 - 62,934

Louisiana 1,309 - - - 25,953

Maine - 6,261 - - 20,610

Maryland - - - - 25,647

Massachusetts -

19,442 10,662 - 79,203

Michigan 693 68,885 - - 175,067

Minnesota 1,590 - - - 38,108

Mississippi 1,530 - - - 45,135

Missouri 1,351 - 355 59 74,292

Montana 459 - 108 - 13,616

Nebraska 400 10,796 - - 34,910

Nevada 700 9,425 - - 36,368

New Hampshire 811 - - 1 15,501

New Jersey - - - - 89,376

New Mexico - - - - 32,355

New York - 2,305 - - 243,918

North Carolina - 1,445 136 - 131,166

North Dakota 159 - - - 5,189

Ohio 5,530 - - - 123,573

Oklahoma 5,677 - - - 58,676

Oregon - - 5,946 1 57,973

Pennsylvania - - - - 39,775

Puerto Rico 927 2,121 - - 14,403

Rhode Island 85 - - - 7,011

South Carolina - 24,305 - - 82,913

South Dakota 191 - - - 4,479

Tennessee 7,303 - 1

78 103,014

Texas 2,813 - 19,282 3,245 323,682

Utah 2,026 - - - 31,476

Vermont - - - - 4,574

Virginia 50 488 - 5 50,145

Washington 2,332 - - - 60,940

West Virginia 3,558 10,324 - 11 50,139

Wisconsin - - - - 36,149

Wyoming - - - - 4,314

National 49,586 412,840 39,651 4,744 3,732,871

National Percent 1.3 11.1 1.1 0.1 100.0

Reporting States 29 18 8 13 52

Child Maltreatment 2022

chApter 3: Children 34

Table 3–3 Child Victims, 2018–2022 (continues next page)

Percent Change from

2018 to 2022State

2018 2019 2020

2021 2022

Alabama 12,158 11,677 11,663 11,840 11,618 -4.4

Alaska 2,615 3,059 3,212 2,733 2,581 -1.3

Arizona 15,504 12,847 9,954 - 12,324 -20.5

Arkansas 8,538 8,422 9,241 9,616 8,927 4.6

California 63,795 64,132 60,317 55,503 50,869 -20.3

Colorado 11,879 12,246 11,615 11,147 9,777 -17.7

Connecticut 7,652 8,042 6,346 5,570 5,032 -34.2

Delaware 1,251 1,248 1,200 1,131 1,077 -13.9

District of Columbia 1,699 1,857 1,568 1,647 1,574 -7.4

Florida 36,795 32,915 28,268 27,394 24,505 -33.4

Georgia 11,064 10,102 8,690 9,643 10,524 -4.9

Hawaii 1,265 1,342 1,294 1,322 1,228 -2.9

Idaho 1,919 1,869 1,958 2,268 2,005 4.5

Illinois 31,515 33,331 35,437 35,841 32,433 2.9

Indiana 25,731 23,029 22,648 21,556 19,185 -25.4

Iowa 11,764 11,648 10,600 11,271 11,150 -5.2

Kansas 3,188 2,945 2,386 2,140 1,861 -41.6

Kentucky 23,752 20,130 16,748 14,963 12,340 -48.0

Louisiana

9,380 8,441 6,859 6,422 7,572 -19.3

Maine 3,481 4,413 4,726 4,228 3,792 8.9

Maryland 7,743 7,661 7,242 6,303 6,564 -15.2

Massachusetts 25,812 25,029 22,538 22,654 22,075 -14.5

Michigan 37,703 33,043 26,932 24,515 23,500 -37.7

Minnesota 7,785 6,780 6,647 5,544 5,299 -31.9

Mississippi 10,002 9,377 8,136 8,526 9,028 -9.7

Missouri 5,662 4,762 4,449 4,262 3,932 -30.6

Montana 3,763 3,736 3,777 3,077 2,714 -27.9

Nebraska 2,596 2,822 2,376 2,471 2,026 -22.0

Nevada 5,109 4,990 5,016 5,547 5,851 14.5

New Hampshire 1,331 1,217 1,182 985 1,034 -22.3

New Jersey 6,008 5,132 3,655 3,188 3,146 -47.6

New Mexico 8,024 8,025 7,050 5,964 5,817 -27.5

New York 68,785 67,269 59,126 56,760 50,056 -27.2

North Carolina 27,280 26,449 23,480 21,643 23,134 -15.2

North Dakota 2,097 1,797 1,614 1,349 1,132 -46.0

Ohio 25,158 25,470 23,691 24,267 22,439 -10.8

Oklahoma 15,355 15,148 14,685 13,719 13,546 -11.8

Oregon

12,581

13,543 11,487 10,573 10,507 -16.5

Pennsylvania 4,695 4,817 4,582 4,683 5,005 6.6

Puerto Rico 4,381 4,738 3,572 4,753 4,320 -1.4

Rhode Island 3,644 3,183 2,743 2,588 2,444 -32.9

South Carolina 19,130 18,717 14,263 15,308 14,572 -23.8

South Dakota 1,426 1,537 1,570 1,459 1,451 1.8

Tennessee 9,186 9,859 8,687 7,739 6,924 -24.6

Texas 63,271 64,093 65,116 65,253 54,207 -14.3

Utah 10,122 10,579 9,694 9,233 8,765 -13.4

Vermont 958 851 530 392 672 -29.9

Virginia 6,132 6,159 5,658 4,944 4,563 -25.6

Washington 4,498 4,222 3,967 3,487 3,389 -24.7

West Virginia 6,946 6,727 6,116 6,094 5,510 -20.7

Wisconsin 5,017 4,576 4,177 4,229 4,082 -18.6

Wyoming 1,044 1,096 992 886 821 -21.4

National 698,189 677,099 619,480 588,630 558,899 N/A

Reporting States 52 52 52 51 52 -

chApter 3: Children 35

Child Maltreatment 2022

Table 3–3 Child Victims, 2018–2022

2018 Rate per 1,000

Children

2019 Rate per 1,000

Children

2020 Rate per 1,000

Children

2021 Rate per 1,000

Children

2022 Rate per 1,000

Children

State

Alabama 11.1 10.7 10.5 10.7 10.5

Alaska 14.3 17.0 17.9 15.4 14.6

Arizona 9.5 7.8 6.2 - 7.8

Arkansas 12.1 12.0 13.3 13.8 12.8

California 7.1 7.2 6.8 6.4 6.0

Colorado 9.4 9.7 9.3 9.0 8.0

Connecticut 10.4 11.1 8.5 7.6 6.9

Delaware 6.1 6.1 5.8 5.5 5.2

District of Columbia 13.4 14.5 12.5 13.3 12.6

Florida 8.7 7.8 6.7 6.5 5.7

Georgia 4.4 4.0 3.5 3.8 4.2

Hawaii 4.2 4.5 4.2 4.4 4.1

Idaho 4.3 4.2 4.3 4.9 4.3

Illinois 11.0 11.8 12.5 12.9 11.9

Indiana 16.4 14.7 14.3 13.7 12.2

Iowa 16.1 16.0 14.5 15.5 15.4

Kansas 4.5 4.2 3.4 3.1 2.7

Kentucky 23.6 20.0 16.6 14.9 12.3

Louisiana 8.5 7.7 6.3 6.0 7.1

Maine 13.9 17.7 18.8 17.0 15.3

Maryland 5.8 5.7

5.3 4.7 4.9

Massachusetts 18.9

18.5 16.4 16.8 16.5

Michigan 17.4 15.4 12.5 11.5 11.1

Minnesota 6.0 5.2 5.1 4.3 4.1

Mississippi 14.1 13.4 11.8 12.5 13.3

Missouri 4.1 3.5 3.2 3.1 2.9

Montana 16.4 16.3 16.3 13.2 11.6

Nebraska 5.4 5.9 4.9 5.2 4.3

Nevada 7.4 7.2 7.2 8.0 8.5

New Hampshire 5.2 4.8 4.6 3.9 4.1

New Jersey 3.1 2.6 1.8 1.6 1.6

New Mexico 16.6 16.8 14.8 12.8 12.7

New York 16.9 16.7 14.2 13.9 12.5

North Carolina 11.8 11.5 10.3 9.5 10.1

North Dakota 11.7 10.0 8.8 7.4 6.2

Ohio 9.7 9.9 9.1 9.4 8.8

Oklahoma 16.1 15.9 15.5 14.4 14.2

Oregon 14.5 15.7 13.3 12.4 12.6

Pennsylvania 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.8 1.9

Puerto Rico 7.4 8.3 6.3 8.7 8.3

Rhode Island 17.7 15.6 13.1 12.5 12.0

South Carolina 17.3 16.8 13.0 13.8 13.0

South Dakota 6.6 7.1 7.2 6.7

6.6

Tennessee 6.1 6.5 5.7 5.1 4.5

Texas 8.6 8.7 8.8 8.8 7.3

Utah 10.9 11.4 10.3 9.9 9.4

Vermont 8.3 7.4 4.5 3.4 5.9

Virginia 3.3 3.3 3.0 2.6 2.4

Washington 2.7 2.5 2.4 2.1 2.1

West Virginia 19.0 18.7 17.1 17.2 15.7

Wisconsin 3.9 3.6 3.3 3.4 3.3

Wyoming 7.8 8.2 7.5 6.7 6.3

National 9.4 9.2 8.4 8.2 7.7

Reporting States - - - - -

chApter 3: Children 36

Child Maltreatment 2022

Table 3–4 First-time Victims, 2022

State

First-time Victims First-time Victims Rate per 1,000 Children

Alabama 9,423 8.5

Alaska 1,676 9.5

Arizona 7,060 4.4

Arkansas 7,462 10.7

California 40,083 4.7

Colorado 6,683 5.5

Connecticut 3,553 4.9

Delaware 895 4.3

District of Columbia 1,088 8.7

Florida 11,046 2.6

Georgia 8,747 3.5

Hawaii 945 3.2

Idaho 1,695 3.7

Illinois 20,623 7.6

Indiana 13,632 8.7

Iowa 7,704 10.6

Kansas 1,669 2.4

Kentucky 7,903 7.9

Louisiana 6,063 5.7

Maine 2,044 8.2

Maryland 4,402 3.3

Massachusetts 12,206 9.1

Michigan 14,840 7.0

Minnesota 5,008 3.9

Mississippi 7,921 11.7

Missouri 3,420 2.5

Montana 2,173 9.3

Nebraska 1,557 3.3

Nevada 3,852 5.6

New Hampshire 847 3.3

New Jersey 2,574 1.3

New Mexico 3,955 8.6

New York 28,845 7.2

North Carolina 15,590 6.8

North Dakota 814 4.5

Ohio 16,217 6.3

Oklahoma 10,525 11.0

Oregon 6,730 8.0

Pennsylvania 4,724 1.8

Puerto Rico 3,941 7.6

Rhode Island 1,647 8.1

South Carolina 10,293 9.2

South Dakota 1,101 5.0

Tennessee 3,523

2.3

Texas 43,563 5.8

Utah 6,001 6.4

Vermont 561 4.9

Virginia 4,285 2.3

Washington 1,552 0.9

West Virginia 4,480 12.7

Wisconsin 3,415 2.7

Wyoming 629 4.8

National 391,185 5.4

Reporting States 52 -

chApter 3: Children 37

Child Maltreatment 2022

Table 3–5 Victims by Age, 2022 (continues next page)

State

<1 1 2

3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Alabama

2,009 731 669 689 604 600 593 534 500

475

Alaska

358 168 162 158 164 147 138 146 144

133

Arizona

2,995 749 742 703 621 623 572 539 496

479

Arkansas

1,985 474 477 461 481 395 490 381 365

349

California

8,425 3,156 2,908 2,775 2,649 2,723 2,737 2,575 2,511

2,405

Colorado

1,261 670 555 532 502 523 542 545 529

491

Connecticut

625 327 314 262 287 261 284 233 245

243

Delaware

119 61 57 60 58 64 62 62 63

District of Columbia

200 101 103 91 91 78 105 102 93

Florida

3,813 1,765 1,753 1,657 1,524 1,421 1,337 1,288 1,128

1,014

Georgia

1,711 572 552 568 568 593 618 627 540

516

Hawaii

170

73 48 79 65 62 65 56 64

Idaho

473 98 103 99 101 82 98 105 81

Illinois

3,992 2,463 2,212 2,273 2,146 2,010 1,953 1,836 1,693

1,671

Indiana

4,595 1,125 1,032 986 957 955 940 901 845

821

Iowa

1,777 744 773 687 680 640 639 554 590

516

Kansas

146 120 105 103 100 115 94 95 116

Kentucky

1,766 826 798 793 712 676 730 675 587

586

Louisiana

2,590 395 420 371 352 316 310 339 271

284

Maine

439 222 231 237 203 231 228 219 243

209

Maryland

476 336 336 355 343 316 366 325 277

324

Massachusetts

2,336 1,292 1,243 1,202 1,143 1,138 1,272 1,256 1,104

1,140

Michigan

2,703 1,641 1,599 1,448 1,383 1,445 1,345 1,261 1,255

1,110

Minnesota

744 329 327

304 328 342 283 243 274

260

Mississippi

1,172 469 476 416 448 459 497 462 451

432

Missouri

288 228 217 212 201 205 155 165 183

176

Montana

342 173 185 157 178 180 161 152 137

129

Nebraska

253 126 130 116 124 133 107 124 83

Nevada

903 422 392 388 349 344 353 302 328

275

New Hampshire

138 77 75 65 55 53 52 56 44

New Jersey

394 177 180 162 166 162 174 154 147

153

New Mexico

643 292 324 268 287 345 369 385 362

342

New York

4,642 2,967 2,955 2,839 2,628 2,833 2,904 2,822 2,822

2,663

North Carolina

2,939 1,506 1,429 1,386 1,277 1,316 1,295 1,252 1,199

1,142

North Dakota

223 76 75 79 69 67 71 65 58

Ohio

3,320 1,300 1,247 1,234 1,193

1,113 1,201 1,155 1,061

1,123

Oklahoma

2,063 959 957 862 816 803 791 700 714

644

Oregon

1,152 591 628 652 622 622 595 552 539

509

Pennsylvania

427 260 218 241 206 215 188 197 194

209

Puerto Rico

274 207 210 223 238 245 283 242 251

275

Rhode Island

327 180 166 154 125 131 157 115 133

113

South Carolina

2,107 965 961 857 798 793 815 770 703

731

South Dakota

278 117 110 97 98 86 85 67 65

Tennessee

1,568 362 285 299 278 274 291 276 265

257

Texas

10,075 4,330 3,991 3,928 3,554 3,446 2,763 2,579 2,327

2,159

Utah

719 424 440 426 428 435 425 456 463

419

Vermont

46 42 36 30 32 31 33 28 39

Virginia

565 312 299 288 255 252 223

227 199

203

Washington

353 252 244 246 198 202 199 182 144

163

West Virginia

847 311 293 301 306 289 315 301 293

272

Wisconsin

453 264 251 234 257 249 243 222 203

184

Wyoming

110 48 58 57 51 47 41 35 56

National

82,329 35,875 34,351 33,110 31,299 31,086 30,587 28,940 27,477

26,255

Reporting States

52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52

Child Maltreatment 2022

chApter 3: Children 38

Table 3–5 Victims by Age, 2022 (continues next page)

Unborn,

Unknown,

and 18–21

State

10 11 12

13 14 15 16 17

Total Victims

Alabama 473 488 552 592 632 627 433 315 102

11,618

Alaska 118 129 117 123 116 114 76 55 15

2,581

Arizona 463 466 438 518 479 554 511 364 12

12,324

Arkansas 352 311 387 448 494 398 381 245 53

8,927

California 2,272 2,388 2,449 2,416 2,363 2,358 2,123 1,600 36

50,869

Colorado 508 496 524 567 486 447 341 237 21

9,777

Connecticut 226 237 278 265 277 239 228 165 36

5,032

Delaware 51 61 54 57 55 49 50 44 3

1,077

District of Columbia 78 82 68 79 71 71 44 36 2

1,574

Florida 1,037 1,056 1,087 1,055 1,077 988 849 586 70

24,505

Georgia 504 442 531 547 530 522 377 197 9

10,524

Hawaii 56 66 63 66 67 59 51 50 9

1,228

Idaho 71 100 92 90 99 86 87 50 3

2,005

Illinois 1,524 1,418 1,479 1,418 1,303 1,241 1,026 707 68

32,433

Indiana 816 770 848 852 880 795 632 413 22

19,185

Iowa 542 464 490 504 474 451 355 253 17

11,150

Kansas 96 108 110 110 106 104 79 61 1

1,861

Kentucky 608 526 589 593 568 530 457 295 25

12,340

Louisiana 292 262 250 297 262 243 197 110 11

7,572

Maine 217 220 182 168 188 147 121 81 6

3,792

Maryland 336 350 431 488 421 411 380 281 12

6,564

Massachusetts 1,073 1,126 1,215 1,294 1,273 1,208 1,024 713 23

22,075

Michigan 1,069 1,055 1,149 1,218 1,154 1,125 910 619 11

23,500

Minnesota 271 257 255 250 270 242 175 128 17

5,299

Mississippi 438 455 489 512 570 572 427 272 11

9,028

Missouri 194 182 217 287 316 301 245 158 2

3,932

Montana 139 128 125 126 121 117 93 64 7

2,714

Nebraska 115 87 101 98 85 94 72 68 28

2,026

Nevada 274 230 241 254 259 230 166 134 7

5,851

New Hampshire 44 60 48 57 57 48 42 20 2

1,034

New Jersey 172 158 168 192 170 160 127 121 9

3,146

New Mexico 331 347 300 305 275 245 216 126 55

5,817

New York 2,626 2,629 2,764 2,796 2,754 2,700 2,195 1,410 107

50,056

North Carolina 1,129 1,118 1,164 1,228 1,177 1,039 894 527 117

23,134

North Dakota 43 42 48 41 50 27 27 15 15

1,132

Ohio 1,058 1,070 1,209 1,241 1,251 1,042 917 621 83

22,439

Oklahoma 613 572 613 592 588 508 414 267 70

13,546

Oregon 481 474 499 588 559 550 474 371 49

10,507

Pennsylvania 211 281 307 379 441 384 322 260 65

5,005

Puerto Rico 261 243 266 246 238 245 240 112 21

4,320

Rhode Island 112 130 110 117 98 106 89 61 20

2,444

South Carolina 690 694 678 707 725 694 551 283 50

14,572

South Dakota 61 69 49 45 54 49 36 25 6

1,451

Tennessee 303 342 427 376 355 360 329 221 56

6,924

Texas 2,099 2,063 2,163 2,183 2,049 1,789 1,541 900 268

54,207

Utah 405 448 452 564 588 575 579 507 12

8,765

Vermont 36 44 35 49 57 41 37 27 1

672

Virginia 187 207 215 239 255 211 180 133 113

4,563

Washington 143 174 195 187 155 146 112 92 2

3,389

West Virginia 279 301 261 272 243 249 238 123 16

5,510

Wisconsin 203 212 209 237 208 181 159 104 9

4,082

Wyoming 48 35 40 32 33 29 22 29 4

821

National 25,748 25,673 27,031 27,965 27,376 25,701 21,651 14,656 1,789

558,899

Reporting States

52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52

Child Maltreatment 2022

chApter 3: Children 39

Table 3–5 Victims by Age, 2022 (continues next page)

Rate per

1,000 children

Rate per

1,000 child

ren

Rate per

1,00

0 child

ren

Rate per

1,00

0 child

ren

Rate per

1,00

0 child

ren

Rate per

1,00

0 child

ren

Rate per

1,00

0 child

ren

Rate per

1,00

0 child

ren

Rate per

1,00

0 child

ren

State

Alabama 34.7 12.8 11.7 11.9 10.1 9.9 9.6 8.6 8.2

Alaska 37.7 18.1 17.3 17.2 17.2 14.8 13.7 14.5 14.1

Arizona 38.1 9.9 9.5 8.8 7.6 7.4 6.6 6.0 5.6

Arkansas 55.2 13.4 13.4 12.7 12.9 10.5 12.7 9.8 9.5

California 19.8 7.8 6.9 6.4 6.0 5.9 5.8 5.4 5.3

Colorado 20.1 10.9 9.1 8.7 8.0 8.1 8.1 8.1 7.9

Connecticut 17.4 9.4 8.6 7.1 7.6 6.8 7.3 5.9 6.2

Delaware 11.0 5.9 5.3 5.6 5.3 5.7 5.4 5.4 5.5

District of Columbia 24.2 12.4 13.7 12.2 11.8 10.1 13.9 13.6 13.1

Florida 17.3 8.3 8.0 7.4 6.6 6.1 5.6 5.4 4.7

Georgia 13.7 4.7 4.4 4.5 4.3

4.4 4.5 4.5 3.9

Hawaii 10.8 4.8 3.0 4.9 3.9 3.7 3.8 3.2 3.7

Idaho 21.1 4.4 4.6

4.4 4.3 3.3 3.8 4.0 3.1

Illinois 30.5 18.9 16.2 16.3 15.0 13.7 13.0 12.1 11.3

Indiana 57.6 14.4 12.7 12.0 11.4 11.3 10.8 10.3 9.7

Iowa 48.3 20.6 20.7 18.4 17.6 16.3 15.9 13.7 14.6

Kansas 4.2 3.5 3.0 2.9 2.8 3.1 2.5 2.5 3.0

Kentucky 33.9 16.1 15.3 15.0 13.2 12.4 13.1 12.1 10.5

Louisiana 45.7 7.1 7.7 6.7 6.2 5.4 5.2 5.7 4.6

Maine 36.6 19.1 18.3 18.6 15.9 17.7 16.9 16.1 17.8

Maryland 6.9 5.0 4.8 5.0 4.7 4.3 4.9 4.3 3.7

Massachusetts 33.1 19.4 18.3 17.6 16.3 16.0 17.6 17.2 15.1

Michigan 25.8 15.9 14.8 13.3 12.4 12.7 11.6 10.7 10.7

Minnesota 11.5 5.2 4.9 4.5 4.8 4.8 3.9 3.3 3.8

Mississippi 33.7 13.6 13.8 11.9 12.6 12.9 13.7 12.6 12.3

Missouri 4.2 3.3 3.1 3.0 2.8 2.8 2.1

2.2 2.4

Montana 30.5 15.7 16.0 13.4 14.7 14.2 12.1 11.3 10.3

Nebraska 10.4 5.2 5.3 4.6 4.8 5.1 4.0 4.6 3.1

Nevada 26.9 12.5 11.2 10.8 9.6 9.3 9.2 7.8 8.5

New Hampshire 10.9 6.3 6.0 5.1 4.3 4.0 3.9 4.1 3.2

New Jersey 3.8 1.8 1.7 1.5 1.6 1.5 1.6 1.4 1.3

New Mexico 30.9 13.8 14.8 11.8 12.3 14.4 14.8 15.1 14.1

New York 21.6 14.7 14.0 13.3 12.1 12.9 13.1 12.7 12.8

North Carolina 24.2 12.8 12.1 11.7 10.6 10.7 10.4 9.9 9.6

North Dakota 22.1 7.7 7.6 8.0 6.8 6.4 6.6 6.1 5.6

Ohio 25.8 10.1 9.4 9.2 8.7 8.0 8.5 8.1 7.4

Oklahoma 43.2 20.2 19.7 17.5 16.2 15.5 14.8 13.0 13.2

Oregon 28.1 15.0 15.3

15.7 14.5 14.0 12.8 11.7 11.4

Pennsylvania 3.2 2.0 1.6 1.8 1.5 1.5 1.3 1.4 1.3

Puerto Rico 14.2

11.3 10.7 10.6 11.2 10.6 11.1 8.8 8.6

Rhode Island 31.0 18.1 15.7 14.3 11.4 11.8 13.8 10.2 11.9

South Carolina 37.1 17.1 16.9 15.0 13.6 13.4 13.4 12.5 11.4

South Dakota 24.3 10.5 9.4 8.2 8.2 7.1 6.9 5.5 5.3

Tennessee 19.2 4.5 3.5 3.7 3.4 3.3 3.4 3.2 3.1

exas 26.6 11.7 10.6 10.2 9.0 8.5 6.6 6.1 5.5

Utah 15.4 9.4 9.4 9.1 9.0 8.8 8.3 8.8 8.9

Vermont 8.6 8.1 6.5 5.3 5.5 5.1 5.3 4.4 6.0

Virginia 5.8 3.3 3.1 2.9 2.5 2.5 2.1 2.2 1.9

Washington 4.2 3.0 2.8 2.9 2.3 2.2 2.1 2.0 1.6

West Virginia 48.7 17.9 16.7 17.1 16.9 15.8 16.6 15.5 14.8

Wisconsin 7.4 4.4 4.0 3.7 4.0 3.8 3.6

3.2 3.0

Wyoming 17.9 7.9 9.3 9.0 7.8 6.8 5.7 4.8 7.7

National 22.2 9.9 9.3 8.8 8.1 7.9 7.6 7.1 6.8

Reporting S

tates

- - - - - - - - -

Child Maltreatment 2022

chApter 3: Children 40

Table 3–5 Victims by Age, 2022

State

Rate per

1,000 Children

Rate per

1,000 Children

Rate per

1,000 Children

Rate per

1,000 Children

Rate per

1,000 Children

Rate per

1,000 Children

Rate per

1,000 Children

Rate per

1,000 Children

Rate per

1,000 Children

Alabama 7.8 7.8 7.9 8.7 9.1 9.3 9.3 6.6 4.9

Alaska 13.0 11.7 12.7 11.7 12.3 11.6 11.6 8.0 5.8

Arizona 5.4 5.2 5.2 4.8 5.5 4.8 5.6 5.3 3.8

Arkansas 9.1 9.2 8.0 9.8 11.0 11.6 9.4 9.2 6.0

California 5.0 4.8 4.9 5.0 4.8 4.5 4.5 4.1 3.1

Colorado 7.4 7.6 7.2 7.4 7.9 6.5 6.0 4.6 3.2

Connecticut 6.1 5.6 5.7 6.6 6.1 6.0 5.1 4.9 3.5

Delaware 4.1 4.4 5.2 4.5 4.7 4.4 3.9 4.0 3.6

District of Columbia 11.0 11.1 12.2 11.0 13.2 12.1 12.4 8.1 6.8

Florida 4.3 4.4 4.4 4.5 4.2 4.1 3.8 3.3 2.3

Georgia 3.7 3.6 3.1 3.7 3.7

3.4 3.3 2.5 1.3

Hawaii 3.4 3.2 3.9 3.8 4.1 4.0 3.7 3.2 3.2

Idaho 3.4 2.7 3.8

3.4 3.2 3.4 3.0 3.1 1.8

Illinois 11.2 10.1 9.2 9.4 8.8 7.8 7.4 6.2 4.2

Indiana 9.4 9.4 8.8 9.5 9.3 9.3 8.4 6.8 4.4

Iowa 12.9 13.7 11.7 11.8 11.8 10.7 10.2 8.2 5.9

Kansas 2.4 2.5 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.5 2.5 1.9 1.5

Kentucky 10.5 11.0 9.5 10.4 10.2 9.4 8.8 7.7 5.0

Louisiana 4.9 5.0 4.5 4.2 4.8 4.1 3.8 3.2 1.8

Maine 15.3 15.9 16.0 12.6 11.4 12.2 9.4 7.8 5.2

Maryland 4.4 4.5 4.6 5.6 6.2 5.2 5.1 4.8 3.6

Massachusetts 15.5 14.5 15.0 15.9 16.6 15.7 14.8 12.5 8.6

Michigan 9.5 9.2 9.0 9.5 9.9 9.0 8.7 7.1 4.8

Minnesota 3.6 3.8 3.6 3.4 3.3 3.5 3.1 2.3 1.7

Mississippi 11.9 11.8 12.2 12.7 12.6 13.3 13.2 10.3 6.7

Missouri 2.3 2.6 2.4 2.8 3.6 3.8 3.6

3.0 2.0

Montana 9.8 10.4 9.7 9.3 9.1 8.4 8.2 6.6 4.7

Nebraska 3.1 4.4 3.3 3.7 3.5 3.0 3.3 2.6 2.5

Nevada 7.2 7.1 5.8 6.1 6.2 6.1 5.4 4.0 3.3

New Hampshire 2.9 3.1 4.2 3.3 3.8 3.6 3.0 2.6 1.2

New Jersey 1.4 1.6 1.4 1.5 1.7 1.4 1.3 1.1 1.0

New Mexico 13.2 12.7 13.1 10.9 10.8 9.4 8.4 7.6 4.4

New York 12.0 11.8 11.7 12.3 12.4 11.9 11.6 9.5 6.1

North Carolina 9.1 9.0 8.8 8.9 9.1 8.4 7.4 6.5 3.9

North Dakota 4.0 4.2 4.2 4.8 4.1 4.9 2.7 2.7 1.6

Ohio 7.9 7.5 7.6 8.3 8.3 8.1 6.7 6.0 4.1

Oklahoma 11.9 11.4 10.6 1

1.2 10.6 10.2 8.9 7.5 4.9

Oregon 10.8 10.2 9.9

10.2 11.7 10.7 10.6 9.4 7.4

Pennsylvania 1.4 1.4 1.9 2.0 2.5 2.8 2.4 2.0 1.7

Puerto Rico 9.0

8.2 7.4 7.7 7.0 6.7 6.7 6.3 2.9

Rhode Island 10.2 10.1 11.6 9.7 10.0 8.0 8.6 7.1 4.8

South Carolina 11.9 11.2 11.1 10.5 10.5 10.4 10.0 8.2 4.3

South Dakota 4.4 5.0 5.7 3.9 3.6 4.2 3.8 2.9 2.1

Tennessee 3.1 3.6 4.1 4.9 4.2 3.8 3.9 3.6 2.5

Texas 5.2 5.1 4.9 5.0 5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5 2.1

Utah 8.0 7.8 8.5 8.3 10.1 10.2 10.0 10.3 9.2

Vermont 4.4 5.5 6.7 5.2 7.2 7.9 5.6 5.1 3.7

Virginia 2.0 1.8 2.0 2.0 2.2 2.3 1.9 1.6 1.2

ashington 1.8 1.6 1.9 2.1 2.0 1.6 1.5 1.2 1.0

West Virginia 13.6 14.0 15.1 12.8 13.0 11.2 11.4 11.1 5.8

Wisconsin 2.7 2.9 3.0 2.9 3.2 2.7 2.3

2.1 1.4

Wyoming 6.3 6.6 4.7 5.2 4.0 4.0 3.5 2.7 3.7

National 6.5 6.3 6.3 6.5 6.5

6.2 5.8 5.0 3.4

Reporting S

tates

- - - - - - - - -

Child Maltreatment 2022

chApter 3: Children 41

Table 3–6 Victims by Sex, 2022

Boy Rate per

1,000 Children

Girl Rate per

1,000 ChildrenState

Boy Girl Unknown

Total Victims

Alabama 5,273 6,332 13 11,618 9.3 11.6

Alaska 1,236 1,332 13 2,581 13.7 15.5

Arizona 5,991 6,107 226 12,324 7.4 7.9

Arkansas 3,969 4,954 4 8,927 11.1 14.6

California 24,123 26,689 57 50,869 5.5 6.4

Colorado 4,599 5,178 - 9,777 7.4 8.7

Connecticut 2,387 2,606 39 5,032 6.4 7.3

Delaware 490 587 - 1,077 4.6 5.7

District of Columbia 783 789 2 1,574 12.4 12.9

Florida 11,587 12,745 173 24,505 5.3 6.1

Georgia 5,031 5,484 9 10,524 3.9 4.5

Hawaii 555 662 11 1,228 3.6 4.6

Idaho 923 1,082 - 2,005 3.9 4.8

Illinois 16,041 16,273 119 32,433 11.5 12.2

Indiana 9,102 10,072 11 19,185 11.3 13.2

Iowa 5,435 5,704 11 11,150 14.7 16.1

Kansas 812 1,049 - 1,861 2.3 3.1

Kentucky 6,012 6,257 71

12,340 11.7 12.8

Louisiana 3,733 3,812 27 7,572 6.9 7.3

Maine 1,829 1,956 7 3,792 14.4 16.2

Maryland 2,726 3,809 29 6,564 4.0 5.8

Massachusetts 10,579 11,104 392 22,075 15.5 17.0

Michigan 11,534 11,947 19 23,500 10.7 11.6

Minnesota 2,474 2,825 - 5,299 3.7 4.5

Mississippi 4,048 4,959 21 9,028 11.7 14.9

Missouri 1,579 2,352 1 3,932 2.3 3.5

Montana 1,351 1,360 3 2,714 11.2 12.0

Nebraska 937 1,089 - 2,026 3.8 4.7

Nevada 2,831 3,020 - 5,851 8.0 9.0

New Hampshire 509 525 - 1,034 3.9 4.3

New Jersey 1,334 1,807 5 3,146 1.3 1.9

New Mexico 2,772 3,007 38 5,817 11.8 13.4

New York 24,490 25,544 22 50,056 12.0 13.1

North Carolina 11,160 11,959 15 23,134 9.5 10.6

North Dakota 551 579 2 1,132 5.9 6.5

Ohio 10,130 12,256 53 22,439 7.7 9.8

Oklahoma 6,581 6,951 14 13,546

13.5 14.9

Oregon 4,813

5,669 25 10,507 11.2 13.9

Pennsylvania 1,829 3,176 - 5,005 1.4 2.5

Puerto Rico 2,080 2,239 1 4,320 7.9 8.8

Rhode Island 1,206 1,228 10 2,444 11.6 12.3

South Carolina 7,176 7,338 58 14,572 12.6 13.4

South Dakota 670 780 1 1,451 6.0 7.3

Tennessee 2,657 4,230 37 6,924 3.4 5.6

Texas 24,966 28,939 302 54,207 6.6 7.9

Utah 3,887 4,842 36 8,765 8.1 10.7

Vermont 273 399 - 672 4.6 7.2

Virginia 2,177 2,385 1 4,563 2.3 2.6

Washington 1,531 1,850 8 3,389 1.8 2.3

West Virginia 2,660 2,822 28 5,510 14.7 16.5

Wisconsin 1,768 2,286 28 4,082 2.8 3.8

Wyoming 409 412 - 821 6.1 6.5

National 263,599 293,358 1,942 558,899 7.1 8.2

Reporting States 52 52 41 52 - -

Child Maltreatment 2022

chApter 3: Children 42

Table 3–7 Victims by Race or Ethnicity, 2022 (continues next page)

State

American

Indian or

Alaska Native Asian

Black or

African-

American Hispanic

Native

Hawaiian or

Other Pacic

Islander

Two or More

Races White

Unknown

Number Total Victims

Alabama 6 27 3,479 611 9 323 7,038 125 11,618

Alaska 1,354 16 39 81 66 370 509 146 2,581

Arizona 521 31 1,064 3,580 25 463 3,033 3,607 12,324

Arkansas 8 17 1,698 744 41 784 5,506 129 8,927

California 462 1,257 6,633 29,198 122 1,135 9,584 2,478 50,869

Colorado 112 86 1,118 4,099 29 449 3,592 292 9,777

Connecticut 8 42 1,045 1,817 3 324 1,652 141 5,032

Delaware 0 3 507 178 0 28 361 - 1,077

District of Columbia 0 1 1,080 136 1 11 10 335 1,574

Florida 11 91 7,112 4,272 15 1,321 10,415 1,268 24,505

Georgia 5 23 4,302 862 5 549 4,565 213 10,524

Hawaii 1 88 19

32 336 494 195 63 1,228

Idaho 23 2 9 255 5 65 1,085 561 2,005

Illinois 10 374 10,362 6,366 10 1,030 14,034 247 32,433

Indiana 4 95 3,374 1,813 11 1,545 12,284 59 19,185

Iowa 151 72 1,682 1,235 63 357 7,537 53 11,150

Kansas 6 10 204 299 2 150 1,154 36 1,861

Kentucky 8 24 1,195 603 9 629 9,338 534 12,340

Louisiana 17 18 3,626 180 7 262 3,169 293 7,572

Maine 31 8 87 142 6 174 2,650 694 3,792

Maryland 1 72 2,279 703 4 250 1,607 1,648 6,564

Massachusetts 43 318 2,804 7,105 17 1,328 8,108 2,352 22,075

Michigan 88 93 7,287 1,910 10 2,369 11,705 38 23,500

Minnesota 469 169 695 816 4 1,065 1,889 192 5,299

Mississippi 15 9 3,653 279 5 258 4,499

310 9,028

Missouri 7 9 435 325 5 73 2,745

333 3,932

Montana 418 2 31 136 0 193 1,908 26 2,714

Nebraska 133 20 263 366 5 171 941 127 2,026

Nevada 25 45 1,596 1,774 68 471 1,471 401 5,851

New Hampshire 2 10 28 79 1 41 787 86 1,034

New Jersey 1 35 873 1,103 2 80 987 65 3,146

New Mexico 547 6 145 3,316 1 102 999 701 5,817

New York 172 1,300 13,612 15,319 24 2,448 16,829 352 50,056

North Carolina 601 93 7,789 2,853 48 1,331 9,761 658 23,134

North Dakota 268 3 92 64 4 91 527 83 1,132

Ohio 13 44 5,669 1,433 19 2,435 12,467 359 22,439

Oklahoma 980 44 1,388 2,392 42 3,429 5,227 44 13,546

Oregon 247 56 340 1,335 55 417 5,616 2,441 10,507

Pennsylvania 4

38 1,020 783 2 303 2,639 216 5,005

Puerto Rico -

- - - - - - - -

Rhode Island 5 20 294 759 1 209 1,106 50 2,444

South Carolina 27 16 5,688 1,000 13 468 6,197 1,163 14,572

South Dakota 640 5 36 95 3 184 449 39 1,451

Tennessee - - - - - - - - -

Texas 81 363 11,468 25,441 82 2,041 13,837 894 54,207

Utah 156 72 312 2,201 202 232 5,494 96 8,765

Vermont 1 4 15 5 0 10 594 43 672

Virginia 2 29 1,118 561 6 285 2,353 209 4,563

Washington 130 43 209 702 66 500 1,562 177 3,389

West Virginia 1 3 138 74 0 380 4,862 52 5,510

Wisconsin 191 74 907 500 4 204 2,122 80 4,082

Wyoming 37 3 31 116 1

6 594 33 821

National 8,043 5,

283 118,850 130,048 1,459 31,837 227,59 3 24,542 547,655

Reporting States 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 49 50

Child Maltreatment 2022

chApter 3: Children 43

Table 3–7 Victims by Race or Ethnicity, 2022

State

American

Indian or

Alaska Native

Rate per 1,000

Children

Asian Rate per

1,000 Children

Black or

African-

American

Rate per 1,000

Children

Hispanic Rate

per 1,000

Children

Native

Hawaiian or

Other Pacic

Islander Rate

per 1,000

Children

Two or More

Races Rate per

1,000 Children

White Rate per

1,000 Children

Alabama 1.5 1.6 10.8 6.3 14.3 7.7 11.2

Alaska 42.0 1.6 7.6 4.3 15.5 15.2 6.2

Arizona 7.3 0.6 12.4 5.0 8.2 6.6 5.1

Arkansas 1.6 1.3 13.8 8.0 8.2 26.7 12.8

California 15.2 1.1 15.6 6.6 4.0 2.5 4.7

Colorado 17.2 2.0 20.3 10.3 12.2 7.6 5.5

Connecticut 3.9 1.1 12.0 9.1 8.4 10.8 4.4

Delaware 0.0 0.3 9.3 4.8 0.0 2.3 3.8

District of Columbia 0.0 0.3 16.8 6.2 19.6 1.9 0.3

Florida 1.3 0.7 8.4 3.1 4.9 7.6 5.9

Georgia 1.1 0.2 5.0 2.2 2.1 5.2 4.4

Hawaii 2.4 1.4 3.8 0.5 10.1 5.2 4.8

Idaho 5.4 0.3 2.2 2.8 5.8 3.7 3.2

Illinois 2.7 2.4

24.7 9.4 12.8 10.0 10.3

Indiana 1.6 2.1 18.3 9.5 14.2 21.8 11.4

Iowa 61.0 3.6 39.2 15.3 26.6

11.5 13.8

Kansas 1.4 0.5 4.8 2.2 2.0 3.9 2.6

Kentucky 6.3 1.2 12.7 8.4 8.4 13.5 12.1

Louisiana 2.8 1.0 9.5 2.0 19.4 7.2 6.0

Maine 16.6 2.3 10.1 16.7 58.8 17.4 12.3

Maryland 0.4 0.8 5.5 2.9 7.4 3.4 3.0

Massachusetts 18.0 3.0 22.5 26.1 22.7 22.7 10.5

Michigan 7.7 1.2 21.2 10.2 15.5 21.8 8.5

Minnesota 26.5 2.0 4.8 6.7 3.5 15.3 2.2

Mississippi 3.8 1.3 13.1 7.6 22.4 13.3 13.6

Missouri 1.5 0.3 2.4 3.2 1.6 1.1 2.8

Montana 19.9 1.0 21.6 8.0 0.0 16.9 10.6

Nebraska 27.3 1.4 9.0 4.0 13.2 8.3 3.0

Nevada 5.1 1.0 20.3 6.2 12.3 9.2 6.8

New Hampshire 5.0 1.1 5.2 4.0 10.9 4.6 3.8

New Jersey

0.3 0.2 3.2 1.9 2.1 1.2 1.1

New Mexico 12.2 1.0 16.8 11.7 4.5 7.9 9.6

New York 14.0 3.6 23.1

15.2 11.6 15.5 9.0

North Carolina 24.6 1.1 15.2 7.0 25.2 12.1 8.5

North Dakota 21.1 0.9 10.5 4.6 16.4 10.4 3.9

Ohio 3.6 0.6 14.3 7.9 12.7 17.9 7.0

Oklahoma 11.0 2.0 18.5 13.1 14.5 34.4 10.9

Oregon 29.4 1.5 17.0 6.8 12.4 7.4 11.0

Pennsylvania 1.2 0.3 3.0 2.1 2.0 2.6 1.6

Puerto Rico - - - - - - -

Rhode Island 5.3 2.6 19.4 12.8 6.4 20.8 10.0

South Carolina 8.5 0.7 17.8 8.3 15.6 9.3 10.3

South Dakota 25.5 1.3 4.8 5.2 11.0 16.8 2.9

Tennessee - - - - - - -

Texas 4.6 1.0 12.2 7.0 11.7 9.3 6.1

Utah 21.0 3.9 26.9 12.2 18.0 6.2 8.3

Vermont 3.6 1.5 6.8 1.4 0.0 2.1

5.9

Virginia 0.5 0.2 3.0 2.0 4.9 2.5 2.5

Washington 6.6 0.3 2.8 1.8 4.4 3.4 1.8

West Virginia 2.1 1.1 10.6 6.7 0.0 23.0 15.8

Wisconsin 15.0 1.5 8.2 3.1 6.6 3.7 2.5

Wyoming 10.9 3.0 24.8 5.5 12.0 1.3 6.0

National 14.3 1.3 12.1 7.0 9.3 9.4 6.6

Reporting States - - - - - - -

Child Maltreatment 2022

chApter 3: Children 44

Table 3–8 Maltreatment Types of Victims (Duplicate Categories), 2022 (continues next page)

State Victims

dical

Neglect Neglect Other Physical Abuse

Psychological

Maltreatment Sexual Abuse Sex Trafcking Unknown

Total

Maltreatment

Typ es

Alabama 11,618 75 4,823 - 6,221 14 2,028 5 - 13,166

Alaska 2,581 79 1,899 - 610 891 252 3 - 3,734

Arizona 12,324 14 11,001 - 1,298 862 581 - - 13,756

Arkansas 8,927 - 6,089 262 1,592 185 1,860 12 - 10,000

California 50,869 64 45,022 249 3,496 3,963 3,451 74 - 56,319

Colorado 9,777 141 8,007 - 953 211 1,064 - 37 10,413

Connecticut 5,032 130 4,330 - 310 1,355 426 1 - 6,552

Delaware 1,077 15 327 161 237 301 195 - - 1,236

District of Columbia 1,574 - 1,416 - 214 - 38 15 - 1,683

Florida 24,505 888 14,463 9,350 2,201 313 2,390 - - 29,605

Georgia 10,524 293 7,137 - 1,484 2,052 652 43

- 11,661

Hawaii 1,228 17 229 1,108 101 12 83 9 - 1,559

Idaho 2,005 10 1,536 13 368 - 187 1 - 2,115

Illinois 32,433 656 25,470 27 5,273 81 3,823 - - 35,330

Indiana 19,185 - 16,517 - 1,324 - 2,284 49 - 20,174

Iowa 11,150 101 9,730 - 1,172 115 648 18 - 11,784

Kansas 1,861 42 880 - 408 287 402 6 - 2,025

Kentucky 12,340 269 11,002 - 1,146 89 756 - - 13,262

Louisiana 7,572 - 6,757 15 768 19 406 6 - 7,971

Maine 3,792 - 2,452 - 930 1,252 239 - - 4,873

Maryland 6,564 - 3,765 - 1,346 12 1,974 - - 7,097

Massachusetts 22,075 - 20,608 4 1,796 - 794 310 - 23,512

Michigan 23,500 570 19,936 - 3,794 156 1,282 17 - 25,755

Minnesota 5,299 - 3,621

- 708 125 1,408 10 - 5,872

Mississippi 9,028 464 6,275 31 1,441 1,644 1,296 25 - 11,176

Missouri 3,932 118 2,090 1 1,236 500 1,246 14 - 5,205

Montana 2,714 14 2,613 1 166 12 107 2 - 2,915

Nebraska 2,026 1 1,706 - 253 15 171 20 - 2,166

Nevada 5,851 84 4,985 - 943 6 458 - - 6,476

New Hampshire 1,034 39 911 - 102 64 68 4 - 1,188

New Jersey 3,146 60 2,114 - 449 18 652 3 - 3,296

New Mexico 5,817 205 4,801 - 738 1,403 207 - - 7,354

New York 50,056 2,677 48,806 1,329 4,715 433 2,161 13 - 60,134

North Carolina 23,134 712 15,349 205 2,436 3,741 1,971 3 314 24,731

North Dakota 1,132 10 995 - 97 78 26 - - 1,206

Ohio 22,439

373 10,101 - 10,467 1,439 4,111 7 - 26,498

Oklahoma 13,546 271 9,950 - 1,774 4,609 704 8 - 17,316

Oregon 10,507 - 4,350 5,953 1,228 181 1,196 - - 12,908

Pennsylvania 5,005 168 560 5 2,323 45 2,145 44 - 5,290

Puerto Rico 4,320 573 2,897 24 861 2,248 218 2 - 6,823

Rhode Island 2,444 28 1,423 64 341 902 111 - - 2,869

South Carolina 14,572 257 8,287 - 6,926 777 777 123 - 17,147

South Dakota 1,451 - 1,304 - 154 28 80 - - 1,566

Tennessee 6,924 87 1,688 - 3,587 170 2,449 141 - 8,122

Texas 54,207 861 43,788 2 6,403 309 7,150 26 - 58,539

Utah 8,765 36 2,170 102 3,498 3,233 1,684 18 - 10,741

Vermont 672 24 22 - 394 2 263 2 - 707

Virginia 4,563 84 3,016

3 1,148 75 703

2 - 5,031

Washington 3,389 - 2,514 - 767 - 477 20 - 3,778

West Virginia 5,510 301 2,459 - 4,197 3,508 273 - - 10,738

Wisconsin 4,082 49 2,593 7 617 17 1,053 28 - 4,364

Wyoming 821 3 661 9 15 278 64 - - 1,030

National 558,899 10,863 415,445 18,925 95,026 38,030 59,044 1,084 351 638,768

Reporting States 52 41 52 23 52 47 52 36 2 52

chApter 3: Children 45

Child Maltreatment 2022

Table 3–8 Maltreatment Types of Victims (Duplicate Categories), 2022

State

Medical

Neglect

Percent

Neglect

Percent Other Percent

Physical Abuse

Percent

Psychological

Maltreatment

Percent

Sexual Abuse

Percent

Sex Trafcking

Percent

Unknown

Percent

Total

Maltreatment

Types Percent

Alabama 0.6 41.5 - 53.5 0.1 17.5 0.0 - 113.3

Alaska 3.1 73.6 - 23.6 34.5 9.8 0.1 - 144.7

Arizona 0.1 89.3 - 10.5 7.0 4.7 - - 111.6

Arkansas - 68.2 2.9 17.8 2.1 20.8 0.1 - 112.0

California 0.1 88.5 0.5 6.9 7.8 6.8 0.1 - 110.7

Colorado 1.4 81.9 - 9.7 2.2 10.9 - 0.4 106.5

Connecticut 2.6 86.0 - 6.2 26.9 8.5 0.0 - 130.2

Delaware 1.4 30.4 14.9 22.0 27.9 18.1 - - 114.8

District of Columbia - 90.0 - 13.6 - 2.4 1.0 - 106.9

Florida 3.6 59.0 38.2 9.0 1.3 9.8 - - 120.8

Georgia 2.8 67.8 - 14.1 19.5 6.2 0.4 - 110.8

Hawaii 1.4 18.6

90.2 8.2 1.0 6.8 0.7 - 127.0

Idaho 0.5 76.6 0.6 18.4 - 9.3 0.0 - 105.5

Illinois 2.0 78.5 0.1 16.3 0.2 11.8 - - 108.9

Indiana - 86.1 - 6.9 - 11.9 0.3 - 105.2

Iowa 0.9 87.3 - 10.5 1.0 5.8 0.2 - 105.7

Kansas 2.3 47.3 - 21.9 15.4 21.6 0.3 - 108.8

Kentucky 2.2 89.2 - 9.3 0.7 6.1 - - 107.5

Louisiana - 89.2 0.2 10.1 0.3 5.4 0.1 - 105.3

Maine - 64.7 - 24.5 33.0 6.3 - - 128.5

Maryland - 57.4 - 20.5 0.2 30.1 - - 108.1

Massachusetts - 93.4 0.0 8.1 - 3.6 1.4 - 106.5

Michigan 2.4 84.8 - 16.1 0.7 5.5 0.1 - 109.6

Minnesota - 68.3 - 13.4 2.4 26.6 0.2 - 110.8

Mississippi 5.1 69.5 0.3 16.0 18.2 14.4

0.3 - 123.8

Missouri 3.0 53.2 0.0 31.4 12.7 31.7 0.4

- 132.4

Montana 0.5 96.3 0.0 6.1 0.4 3.9 0.1 - 107.4

Nebraska 0.0 84.2 - 12.5 0.7 8.4 1.0 - 106.9

Nevada 1.4 85.2 - 16.1 0.1 7.8 - - 110.7

New Hampshire 3.8 88.1 - 9.9 6.2 6.6 0.4 - 114.9

New Jersey 1.9 67.2 - 14.3 0.6 20.7 0.1 - 104.8

New Mexico 3.5 82.5 - 12.7 24.1 3.6 - - 126.4

New York 5.3 97.5 2.7 9.4 0.9 4.3 0.0 - 120.1

North Carolina 3.1 66.3 0.9 10.5 16.2 8.5 0.0 1.4 106.9

North Dakota 0.9 87.9 - 8.6 6.9 2.3 - - 106.5

Ohio 1.7 45.0 - 46.6 6.4 18.3 0.0 - 118.1

Oklahoma 2.0 73.5 - 13.1 34.0 5.2 0.1 - 127.8

Oregon - 41.4 56.7 11.7 1.7 11.4 - - 122.9

Pennsylvania

3.4 11.2 0.1 46.4 0.9 42.9 0.9 - 105.7

Puerto Rico 13.3

67.1 0.6 19.9 52.0 5.0 0.0 - 157.9

Rhode Island 1.1 58.2 2.6 14.0 36.9 4.5 - - 117.4

South Carolina 1.8 56.9 - 47.5 5.3 5.3 0.8 - 117.7

South Dakota - 89.9 - 10.6 1.9 5.5 - - 107.9

Tennessee 1.3 24.4 - 51.8 2.5 35.4 2.0 - 117.3

Texas 1.6 80.8 0.0 11.8 0.6 13.2 0.0 - 108.0

Utah 0.4 24.8 1.2 39.9 36.9 19.2 0.2 - 122.5

Vermont 3.6 3.3 - 58.6 0.3 39.1 0.3 - 105.2

Virginia 1.8 66.1 0.1 25.2 1.6 15.4 0.0 - 110.3

Washington - 74.2 - 22.6 - 14.1 0.6 - 111.5

West Virginia 5.5 44.6 - 76.2 63.7 5.0 - - 194.9

Wisconsin 1.2 63.5 0.2 15.1 0.4 25.8 0.7 - 106.9

Wyoming 0.4 80.5 1.1 1.8

33.9 7.8 - - 125.5

National 1.9 74.3 3

.4 17.0 6.8 10.6 0.2 0.1 114.3

Reporting States - - - - - - - - -

chApter 3: Children 46

Child Maltreatment 2022

Table 3–9 Victims by Relationship to Their Perpetrators, 2022

Perpetrator Vi

ctims

Reported

Relationships

Reported

Relationships Percent

PARENT

- - -

Father Only

125,489 24.5

Father and Nonparent

5,397 1.1

Mother Only

191,450 37.4

Mother and Nonparent

29,204 5.7

Two Parents of known sex

98,538 19.2

Three Parents of known sex

619 0.1

Two Parents of known sex and Nonparent

4,019 0.8

One or more Parents of Unknown Sex

1,162 0.2

Total Parents

455,878 89.0

NONPARENT

Child Daycare Provider(s) - 2,091 0.4

Foster Parent(s) - 1,754 0.3

Friend(s) and Neighbor(s) - 3,958 0.8

Group Home and Residential Facility Staff - 924 0.2

Legal Guardian(s) - 1,731 0.3

Other Professional(s) -

1,277 0.2

Relative(s) -

29,919 5.8

Unmarried Partner(s) of Parent -

19,196 3.7

Other(s) -

17,489 3.4

More Than One Nonparental Perpetrator - 2,318 0.5

Total Nonparents - 80,657 15.8

TOTAL UNKNOWN - 15,633 3.1

National 512,077 552 ,168 107.8

Based on data from 48 states.

chApter 3: Children 47

Child Maltreatment 2022

Table 3–10 Victims with Caregiver Risk Factors, 2022 (continues next page)

State

Victims

in Reporting

States Alcohol Abuse

Alcohol Abuse

Percent

Victims

in Reporting

States

Domestic

Violence

Domestic

Violence

Percent

Alabama 11,618 720 6.2 - - -

Alaska 2,581 1,398 54.2 2,581 1,192 46.2

Arizona - - - - - -

Arkansas - - - 8,927 800 9.0

California - - - - - -

Colorado - - - - - -

Connecticut - - - - - -

Delaware 1,077 176 16.3 1,077 428 39.7

District of Columbia 1,574 485 30.8 1,574 349 22.2

Florida - - - 24,505 9,072 37.0

Georgia - - - 10,524 333 3.2

Hawaii 1,228 230 18.7 1,228 431 35.1

Idaho 2,005 256 12.8 - - -

Illinois - - - - - -

Indiana 19,185 731 3.8 19,185 2,180 11.4

Iowa - - - - - -

Kansas - - - - - -

Kentucky 12,340 1,761 14.3 12,340 6,184 50.1

Louisiana - - - - - -

Maine 3,792 579 15.3 3,792 817 21.5

Maryland 6,564 174 2.7 6,564 294 4.5

Massachusetts 22,075 10,286 46.6 22,075 10,097 45.7

Michigan - - - 23,500 1,686 7.2

Minnesota 5,299 529 10.0 5,299 1,362 25.7

Mississippi 9,028 509 5.6 9,028 963 10.7

Missouri 3,932 318 8.1 3,932 267 6.8

Montana 2,714 163 6.0 2,714 120 4.4

Nebraska 2,026 336 16.6 2,026 86 4.2

Nevada 5,851 1,757 30.0 5,851 1,104 18.9

New Hampshire 1,034 106 10.3 1,034 464 44.9

New Jersey 3,146 373 11.9 3,146 724 23.0

New Mexico 5,817 1,117 19.2 - - -

New York 50,056 8,758 17.5 50,056 13,639 27.2

North Carolina 23,134 1,435 6.2 23,134 3,867 16.7

North Dakota - - - - - -

Ohio - - - 22,439 5,883 26.2

Oklahoma

13,546 2,535 18.7 13,546 5,241 38.7

Oregon 10,507

4,846 46.1 10,507 4,278 40.7

Pennsylvania - - - - - -

Puerto Rico 4,320 610 14.1 4,320 1,309 30.3

Rhode Island 2,444 245 10.0 2,444 1,180 48.3

South Carolina - - - - - -

South Dakota 1,451 536 36.9 1,451 385 26.5

Tennessee - - - - - -

Texas 54,207 2,524 4.7 54,207 19,658 36.3

Utah 8,765 1,081 12.3 8,765 2,636 30.1

Vermont - - - - - -

Virginia - - - 4,563 880 19.3

Washington 3,389 899 26.5 3,389 672 19.8

West Virginia 5,510 502 9.1 - - -

Wisconsin 4,082 108 2.6 4,082 485 11.9

Wyoming 821 171 20.8 821 189 23.0

National

305,118 46,254 15.2

374,626 99,255 26.5

Reporting States

33 33 -

35 35 -

chApter 3: Children 48

Child Maltreatment 2022

Table 3–10 Victims with Caregiver Risk Factors, 2022

State

Victims

in Reporting

States Drug Abuse

Drug Abuse

Percent

Victims

in Reporting

States

Inadequate

Housing

Inadequate

Housing Percent

Alabama 11,618 5,940 51.1 11,618 630 5.4

Alaska 2,581 819 31.7 2,581 210 8.1

Arizona - - - - - -

Arkansas 8,927 218 2.4 8,927 430 4.8

California - - - - - -

Colorado - - - - - -

Connecticut - - - 5,032 131 2.6

Delaware 1,077 345 32.0 1,077 211 19.6

District of Columbia 1,574 485 30.8 1,574 141 9.0

Florida 24,505 570 2.3 24,505 1,860 7.6

Georgia 10,524 623 5.9 - - -

Hawaii 1,228 524 42.7 1,228 93 7.6

Idaho 2,005 812 40.5 2,005 329 16.4

Illinois - - - - - -

Indiana 19,185 3,442 17.9 19,185 1,405 7.3

Iowa - - - 11,150 353 3.2

Kansas - - - - - -

Kentucky

12,340 6,117 49.6 12,340 2,727 22.1

Louisiana

- - - - - -

Maine 3,792 794 20.9 3,792 195 5.1

Maryland 6,564 467 7.1 - - -

Massachusetts 22,075 10,286 46.6 22,075 1,066 4.8

Michigan 23,500 600 2.6 - - -

Minnesota 5,299 951 17.9 5,299 551 10.4

Mississippi 9,028 3,134 34.7 9,028 1,523 16.9

Missouri 3,932 916 23.3 3,932 728 18.5

Montana 2,714 432 15.9 - - -

Nebraska 2,026 573 28.3 - - -

Nevada 5,851 1,766 30.2 5,851 462 7.9

New Hampshire 1,034 330 31.9 1,034 85 8.2

New Jersey 3,146 656 20.9 3,146 221 7.0

New Mexico 5,817 1,490 25.6 5,817 150 2.6

New York 50,056 8,800 17.6 - - -

North Carolina 23,134 4,518 19.5 23,134 1,220 5.3

North Dakota - - - - - -

Ohio 22,439 11,386 50.7 22,439 2,998 13.4

Oklahoma 13,546

5,107 37.7 13,546 652 4.8

Oregon 10,507

4,874 46.4 10,507 777 7.4

Pennsylvania - - - - - -

Puerto Rico 4,320 645 14.9 4,320 370 8.6

Rhode Island 2,444 299 12.2 2,444 74 3.0

South Carolina - - - 14,572 2,215 15.2

South Dakota 1,451 676 46.6 1,451 313 21.6

Tennessee 6,924 837 12.1 6,924 187 2.7

Texas 54,207 9,500 17.5 54,207 2,248 4.1

Utah 8,765 2,027 23.1 8,765 566 6.5

Vermont - - - - - -

Virginia - - - - - -

Washington 3,389 1,565 46.2 3,389 578 17.1

West Virginia 5,510 2,664 48.3 - - -

Wisconsin 4,082 226 5.5 4,082 216 5.3

Wyoming 821 380 46.3 821 146 17.8

National

401,937 95,794 23.8

331,797 26,061 7.9

Reporting States

39 39 -

35 35 -

chApter 3: Children 49

Child Maltreatment 2022

Table 3–11 Infants with Prenatal Substance Exposure by Submission Type, 2022

State

Screened-in IPSE

with Alcohol Abuse

Child Risk Factor

Screened-in IPSE

with Drug Abuse

Child Risk Factor

Screened-in IPSE

with Alcohol Abuse

and Drug Abuse Child

Risk Factor

Total Screened-in

IPSE Screened-out IPSE Total IPSE

Alabama 2 542 - 544 1 545

Alaska - - 82 82 104 186

Arizona - - - - 169 169

Arkansas 20 1,622 2 1,644 3 1,647

California - 36 2,934 2,970 579 3,549

Colorado - 23 - 23 826 849

Connecticut - - - - 92 92

Delaware - 332 1 333 19 352

District of Columbia - 109 - 109 - 109

Florida - - - - 40 40

Georgia 46 2,370 82 2,498 1,138 3,636

Hawaii - 20 8 28 - 28

Idaho 6 169 - 175 2 177

Illinois - - 680 680 - 680

Indiana 2 570 3 575 59 634

Iowa - 30 - 30 7 37

Kansas - - 29

29 18 47

Kentucky 8 757 5 770 381 1,151

Louisiana

12 2,092 - 2,104 40 2,144

Maine - - - - 327 327

Maryland - 11 - 11 0 11

Massachusetts - 36 1,345 1,381 177 1,558

Michigan 3 6,633 19 6,655 1,598 8,253

Minnesota 5 1,497 7 1,509 250 1,759

Mississippi 1 67 - 68 213 281

Missouri - 19 - 19 273 292

Montana 1 19 1 21 - 21

Nebraska 2 155 2 159 19 178

Nevada - 2 745 747 - 747

New Hampshire - 86 - 86 - 86

New Jersey 3 394 6 403 - 403

New Mexico 1 131 3 135 274 409

New York 1 561 5 567 - 567

North Carolina 3 1,210 - 1,213 693 1,906

North Dakota - - - - - -

Ohio 6 5,309 44 5,359

1,683 7,042

Oklahoma 17 2,248 66 2,331 25 2,356

Oregon -

23 - 23 - 23

Pennsylvania - - - - - -

Puerto Rico - 9 1 10 - 10

Rhode Island - - 70 70 4 74

South Carolina - 533 1 534 109 643

South Dakota - 36 1 37 47 84

Tennessee - 134 - 134 - 134

Texas 59 1,131 - 1,190 4 1,194

Utah - 179 - 179 - 179

Vermont - - - - 102 102

Virginia - - 18 18 90 108

Washington - 253 - 253 40 293

West Virginia - 528 3 531 - 531

Wisconsin - - - - 56 56

Wyoming - 8 2 10 47 57

National 198 29,884 6,165 36,247 9,509 45,756

National Percent

N/A N/A N/A 79.2 20.8 100.0

Percent of

Screened-in IPSE

0.5 82.4 17.0 100.0 N/A N/A

Reporting States

19 39 28 44 36 50

chApter 3: Children 50

Child Maltreatment 2022

Table 3–12 Screened-in Infants with Prenatal Substance Exposure Who

Have a Plan of Safe Care, 2022

State

Screened-in IPSE

Screened-in IPSE Who Have a Plan

of Safe Care

Screened-in IPSE Who Have a Plan

of Safe Care Percent

Alabama 544 231 42.5

Alaska - - -

Arizona - - -

Arkansas 1,644 1,419 86.3

California 2,970 1,313 44.2

Colorado 23 2 8.7

Connecticut - - -

Delaware 333 322 96.7

District of Columbia 109 95 87.2

Florida - - -

Georgia 2,498 1,775 71.1

Hawaii - - -

Idaho 175 142 81.1

Illinois - - -

Indiana 575 309 53.7

Iowa 30 30 100.0

Kansas 29 1 3.4

Kentucky 770 142 18.4

Louisiana 2,104 1,240 58.9

Maine - - -

Maryland - - -

Massachusetts 1,381 869 62.9

Michigan 6,655 6,445 96.8

Minnesota 1,509 1,299 86.1

Mississippi - - -

Missouri - - -

Montana - - -

Nebraska 159 30 18.9

Nevada 747 48 6.4

New Hampshire 86 55 64.0

New Jersey 403 121 30.0

New Mexico 135 45 33.3

New York 567

480 84.7

North Carolina 1,213 1,131 93.2

North Dakota - - -

Ohio 5,359 4,701 87.7

Oklahoma 2,331 48 2.1

Oregon 23 3 13.0

Pennsylvania - - -

Puerto Rico 10 10 100.0

Rhode Island - - -

South Carolina - - -

South Dakota 37 12 32.4

Tennessee 134 132 98.5

Texas 1,190 1,190 100.0

Utah 179 36 20.1

Vermont - - -

Virginia 18 13 72.2

Washington 253 92 36.4

West Virginia - - -

Wisconsin - - -

Wyoming - - -

National 34,193 23,781 69.5

Reporting States 33 33 -

chApter 3: Children 51

Child Maltreatment 2022

Table 3–13 Screened-in Infants with Prenatal Substance Exposure Who

Have a Referral to Appropriate Services, 2022

State

Screened-in IPSE

Screened-in IPSE Who Have a

Referral to Appropriate Services

Screened-in IPSE Who Have a

Referral to Appropriate Services

Percent

Alabama 544 248 45.6

Alaska - - -

Arizona - - -

Arkansas 1,644 1,418 86.3

California 2,970 1,020 34.3

Colorado 23 3 13.0

Connecticut - - -

Delaware 333 136 40.8

District of Columbia 109 93 85.3

Florida - - -

Georgia 2,498 1,775 71.1

Hawaii - - -

Idaho 175 149 85.1

Illinois - - -

Indiana 575 159 27.7

Iowa 30 28 93.3

Kansas 29 1 3.4

Kentucky 770 178 23.1

Louisiana 2,104 1,428 67.9

Maine - - -

Maryland - - -

Massachusetts 1,381 1,333 96.5

Michigan 6,655 5,815 87.4

Minnesota 1,509 390 25.8

Mississippi - - -

Missouri - - -

Montana - - -

Nebraska 159 111 69.8

Nevada - - -

New Hampshire 86 52 60.5

New Jersey 403 121 30.0

New Mexico 135 44

32.6

New York 567

436 76.9

North Carolina 1,213 1,127 92.9

North Dakota - - -

Ohio 5,359 4,217 78.7

Oklahoma 2,331 1,188 51.0

Oregon 23 4 17.4

Pennsylvania - - -

Puerto Rico 10 7 70.0

Rhode Island - - -

South Carolina - - -

South Dakota 37 5 13.5

Tennessee 134 132 98.5

Texas 1,190 1,123 94.4

Utah 179 36 20.1

Vermont - - -

Virginia 18 14 77.8

Washington 253 92 36.4

West Virginia - - -

Wisconsin - - -

Wyoming - - -

National 33,446 22,883 68.4

Reporting States 32 32 -

chApter 4: Fatalities 52

Child Maltreatment 2022

Fatalities

The effects of child abuse and neglect are serious, and a child fatality is the most tragic

consequence. The National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS) collects case-

level data in the Child File on child deaths from maltreatment. Additional counts of child

fatalities, for which case-level data is not known, are reported in the Agency File.

Some child maltreatment deaths may not come to the attention of child protective services

(CPS) agencies. Reasons for this include if there were no surviving siblings in the family,

or if the child had not (prior to his or her death) received child welfare services. To improve

the counts of child fatalities in NCANDS, states consult data sources outside of CPS for

deaths attributed to child maltreatment. The Child and Family Services Improvement and

Innovation Act (P.L. 112–34) lists the following additional data sources, which states must

include a description of in their state plan or explain why they are not used to report child

deaths due to maltreatment: state vital statistics departments, child death review teams,

law enforcement agencies, and ofces of medical examiners or coroners. In addition to the

sources mentioned in the law, some states also collect child fatality data from hospitals,

health departments, juvenile justice departments, and prosecutor and attorney general ofces.

States that can provide these additional data do so as aggregate data in the Agency File.

After the passage of the Child and Family Services Improvement and Innovation Act, several

states mentioned that they implemented new child death reviews or expanded the scope of

existing reviews. Some states began investigating all unexplained infant deaths regardless of

whether there was an allegation of maltreatment.

The child fatality count in this report reects the federal scal year (FFY) in which the

deaths are determined as due to maltreatment. The year in which a determination is made

may be different from the year in which the child died. CPS agencies may need more time

to determine a child died due to maltreatment. The time needed to conclude if a child was a

victim of maltreatment often does not coincide with the timeframe for concluding that the

death was a result of maltreatment, due to multiple-agency involvement and multiple levels

of review for child deaths. The “date of death” eld in the NCANDS Child File indicates the

day, month, and year in which the child died.

Number of Child Fatalities

For FFY 2022, a national estimate of 1,990 children died from abuse and neglect at a rate

of 2.73 per 100,000 children in the population. The 2022 national estimate is a 12.7 percent

increase from the 2018 actual number of child fatalities of 1,765.

See exhibit 4–A and

CHAPTER 4

The percent change is calculated using the actual reported number for FFY 2018 and FFY 2022.

chApter 4: Fatalities 53

Child Maltreatment 2022

related notes on how the national estimate is calculated. Due to the relatively low frequency

of child fatalities, the national rate and national estimate are sensitive to which states report

data and changes in the child population estimates produced by the U.S. Census Bureau.

Detailed explanations for data uctuations may be found in Appendix D, State Commentary.

An explanation for a change may be in an earlier edition of the Child Maltreatment

report. Previous editions of the report are located on the Children’s Bureau website at

https://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb/data-research/child-maltreatment.

At the state level for FFY 2022, 51 states reported 1,955 fatalities. Of those states, 46 reported

case-level data on 1,609 fatalities and 37 reported aggregate data on 346 fatalities. Fatality

rates by state range from 0.00 to 10.62 per 100,000 children in the population. See table 4–1

and related notes. All states are required to conrm fatality counts during data submission and

validation.

The total child fatalities reported by states in the Child File and Agency File uctuated during

the past 5 years, which is partly due to the number of states reporting. See table 4–2 and

related notes. The number of reported fatalities increased from 1,852 for FFY 2021 to 1,955

for FFY 2022. While not every state had an explanation for the increases, one state noted

improved reporting and resubmitted multiple prior years to include additional fatalities, one

state cited increased violence, and one cited increased fentanyl and opioid related deaths.

The state with the largest decrease conrmed a decrease in deaths due to unsafe sleep condi-

tions, drownings, vehicle-related deaths, and physical abuse. This state also cited a change in

the neglect denition.

Readers are encouraged to review the fatality comments provided by

states in Appendix D.

Child Fatality Demographics

Younger children are the most vulnerable to death as the result of child abuse and neglect.

See table 4–3, exhibit 4–B, and related notes. FFY 2022 data shows that 66.1 percent of child

fatalities are younger than 3 years. Close to one-half (44.7%) of child fatalities are younger

than 1 year, a fatality rate of 24.37 per 100,000 children in that age range. This is 3.4 (rounded)

times the fatality rate for 1-year-old children (7.14 per 100,000 children in the population of the

same age). The child fatality rates mostly decrease with age.

Exhibit 4–A Child Fatality Rates per 100,000 Children, 2018–2022

Year Reporting States

Child Population of

Reporting States

Child Fatalities

from Reporting

States

National Fatality

Rate Per 100,000

Children

Child Population of

all 52 States

National Estimate/

Actual Number of

Child Fatalities

2018 52

73,977,376

1,765 2.39 73,977,376 1,765

2019 52 73,661,476 1,825 2.48 73,661,476 1,825

2020 51 72,609,649 1,818 2.50 73,982,567 1,850

2021 50 70,413,403 1,852 2.63 73,356,806 1,930

2022

71,631,732 1,955 2.73 72,969,166 1,990

Data is from the Child File and Agency File. National fatality rates per 100,000 children are calculated for each year by dividing the number of

child fatalities by the population of reporting states, multiplying the result by 100,000, and displayed as rounded to the hundredth.

If fewer than 52 states reported data, the national estimate of child fatalities is calculated by multiplying the national fatality rate (displayed as

rounded) by the child population of all 52 states and dividing by 100,000. e estimate is rounded to the nearest 10. If 52 states reported data, the

actual number of child fatalities reported by states is displayed.

North Carolina, Ohio, and Washington.

Texas

chApter 4: Fatalities 54

Child Maltreatment 2022

Boys have a higher child fatality rate than girls at 3.26 per 100,000 boys in the population,

compared with 2.25 per 100,000 girls in the population. Boys are 60.3 percent of child fatali-

ties and girls are 39.7 percent. There are not any child fatalities with an unknown sex for FFY

2022. See exhibit 4–C and related notes.

More than 85.0 percent (85.6%) of child fatalities are one of three races: White (36.7%),

Black or African-American (34.9%), or Hispanic (13.9%). Using the number of victims and

the population data to create rates highlights some racial disparity. The rate of Black or

African-American child fatalities (6.37 per 100,000 Black or African-American children) is

3.2 (rounded) times greater than the rate of White child fatalities (1.99 per 100,000 White

children) and 3.8 (rounded) times greater than the rate of Hispanic child fatalities (1.68 per

100,000 Hispanic children). Children of two or more races had the second highest rate at

4.03 and American Indian or Alaska Native children had a rate of 3.37 per 100,000 children.

See exhibit 4–D and related notes.

Exhibit 4–C Child Fatalities by Sex, 2022

Sex Child Population Child Fatalities Child Fatalities Percent

Child Fatalities Rate per

100,000 Children

Boys 29,761,383 971 60.3 3.26

Girls 28,409,359 638 39.7 2.25

Unknown - - - -

National 58,170,742 1,609 100.0 N/A

Based on data from 46 states. Data is from the Child File. No fatalities are reported with an unknown sex. Dashes are inserted into cells without any

data included in this analysis.

Exhibit 4–B Child Fatalities by Age, 2022

Children <1 year old died from abuse and neglect at more than three times the rate of children

who were 1 year old.

Based on data from 46 states. See table 4–3.

chApter 4: Fatalities 55

Child Maltreatment 2022

Exhibit 4–E Maltreatment Types

of Child Fatalities, 2022

Maltreatment Type Child Fatalities Maltreatment Types

Maltreatment Types

Percent

Medical Neglect - 133 8.3

Neglect - 1,229 76.4

Other - 8 0.5

Physical Abuse - 677 42.1

Psychological

Maltreatment - 39 2.4

Sexual Abuse - 9 0.6

Sex Trafcking

- - -

Unknown - - -

National 1,609 2,095 N/A

Based on data from 46 states. Data is from the Child File. A child may have suered from more

than one type of maltreatment and therefore, the total number of reported maltreatments exceeds

the number of fatalities, and the total percentage of reported maltreatments exceeds 100.0

percent. e percentages are calculated against the number of child fatalities in the reporting

states. Dashes are inserted into cells without any data included in this analysis.

As discussed in chapter 3, the Child

Maltreatment report includes only

those maltreatment types that have a

disposition of substantiated or

indicated. It is important to note that

while these maltreatment types likely

contributed to the cause of death,

NCANDS does not have a field for

collecting the official cause of death.

Of the children who died, 76.4 percent

suffered neglect and 42.1 percent

suffered physical abuse either exclu-

sively or in combination with another

maltreatment type. See exhibit 4–E

and related notes.

Risk Factors

Risk factors are characteristics of a child or caregiver that may increase the likelihood of

child maltreatment. Risk factors can be difcult to accurately assess and measure, and there-

fore may go undetected among many children and caregivers. Some states are able to report

data on caregiver risk factors for children who died as a result of maltreatment. Caregivers

with these risk factors may not be the perpetrator responsible for the child’s death. Please see

the Risk Factors section in chapter 3 or Appendix B, Glossary, for more information and the

NCANDS denitions of these risk factors.

Twenty-eight states report that 40 (5.1%) child fatalities had a caregiver with a risk factor of

alcohol abuse. Thirty-four states report that 253 (20.8%) child fatalities had a caregiver with a

risk factor of drug abuse. See exhibit 4–F and related notes.

Exhibit 4–D Child Fatalities by Race or Ethnicity, 2022

Race and Ethnicity Child Population Child Fatalities Child Fatalities Percent

Child Fatalities Rate per

100,000 Children

American Indian or Alaska Native 445,159 15 1.0 3.37

Asian 2,505,982 7 0.4 0.28

Black or African-American 8,624,432 549 34.9 6.37

Hispanic 12,947,772 218 13.9 1.68

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacic

Islander

99,878 3 0.2 3.00

Unknown - 100 6.4 N/A

White 28,958,953 577 36.7 1.99

Two or More Races 2,532,090 102 6.5 4.03

National 56,114,266 1,571 100.0 N/A

Based on data from 44 states. Data is from the Child File. Counts associated with specic racial groups (e.g., White) are exclusive and do not include

Hispanic.

States with 30.0 percent or more of victim race or ethnicity reported as unknown or missing are excluded from this analysis. is analysis includes

only those states that have both race and ethnicity population data. Dashes are inserted into cells without any data included in this analysis.

Maltreatment Types

chApter 4: Fatalities 56

Child Maltreatment 2022

Perpetrator Relationship

The FFY 2022 data shows that most perpetrators are caregivers of their victims. More than 80

percent (81.8%) of child fatalities involved one or more parents acting alone, together, or with

other individuals. More than 10 percent (13.2%) of fatalities did not have a known parental

relationship to their perpetrator. Similarly to all victims, the largest categories in the nonparent

group are relative(s) (4.7%) and “other(s)” (3.4%). The NCANDS category of “other(s)” perpetra-

tor relationship includes any relationship that does not map to one of the NCANDS relationship

categories. According to states’ commentary, “other” includes nonrelated adult, nonrelated child,

foster sibling, babysitter, household staff, clergy, and school personnel. Please see Appendix

D for additional information on what states include in this category. Based on data from 43

states, child fatalities with unknown perpetrator relationship data accounted for 4.9 percent.

See table 4–4 and related notes.

Prior CPS Contact

Some children who die from abuse and neglect are already known to CPS agencies. Not

all states that report child fatalities are able to report family preservation or reunication

services. The national percentages are sensitive to which states report data.

In the states reporting both child fatalities and family preservation services, 97 (9.5%) of

the 1,020 Child File fatalities and 52 (15.4%) of the 338 Agency File fatalities had family

preservation services. In the states reporting both fatalities and family reunication services,

52 (4.1%) of the 1,256 Child File fatalities and 15 (4.4%) of the 342 Agency File fatalities

were removed from home and subsequently reunited with their families prior to their death.

See tables 4–5, 4–6, and related notes.

Exhibit and Table Notes

The following pages contain the data tables referenced in chapter 4. Specic information

about state submissions can be found in Appendix D, State Commentary. Additional infor-

mation regarding the exhibits and tables is provided below.

General

During data analyses, thresholds are set to ensure data quality is balanced with the need to

report data from as many states as possible. States may be excluded from an analysis for data

quality issues. Exclusion rules are listed with the relevant table notes below. Not every table

has an exclusion rule or notes.

■ The data for all tables are from the Child File unless otherwise noted.

■ All analyses use a unique count of fatalities (child fatality is counted once).

■ Rates are per 100,000 children in the population.

Exhibit 4–F Child Fatalities with Selected Caregiver Risk Factors, 2022

Caregiver Risk Factor Reporting States

Child Fatalities from

Reporting States

Child Fatalities with a

Caregiver Risk Factor

Child Fatalities with a

Caregiver Risk Factor

Percent

Alcohol Abuse 28 781 40 5.1

Drug Abuse 34 1,217 253 20.8

Data is from the Child File. For each caregiver risk factor, the analysis includes only those states that report at least 2.0 percent of child victims’

caregiver with the risk factor.

If a child is reported both with and without the caregiver risk factor, the child is counted once with the caregiver risk factor.

chApter 4: Fatalities 57

Child Maltreatment 2022

■ Rates are calculated by dividing the relevant reported count (fatalities, by age, by race,

etc.) by the relevant child population count (by age, by race, etc.) and multiplying by

100,000.

■ NCANDS uses the child population estimates that are released annually by the U.S.

Census Bureau. These estimates are in Appendix C, State Characteristics.

■ The row labeled Reporting States displays the count of states that provide data for that

analysis. States that do not have a child maltreatment related death and report a zero are

included in the count of reporting states and the state’s child population is included in

tables with rate calculations.

■ Child fatalities are reported during the FFY in which the death was determined as due to

maltreatment. This may not be the same year in which the child died.

■ National totals and calculations appear in a single row labeled National instead of separate

rows labeled total, rate, or percent.

■ Dashes are inserted into cells without any data.

Table 4–1 Child Fatalities by Submission Type, 2022

■ Data is from the Child File and Agency File.

■ The rates were computed by dividing the number of total child fatalities by the child

population of reporting states and multiplying by 100,000.

Table 4–2 Child Fatalities, 2018–2022

■ Data is from the Child File and Agency File.

Table 4–3 Child Fatalities by Age, 2022

■ There is no population data for unknown age and therefore, no rates.

Table 4–4 Child Fatalities by Relationship to Their Perpetrators, 2022

■ States are excluded from this analysis if more than 20.0 percent of perpetrators are

reported with an unknown or missing relationship.

■ States are excluded from this analysis if more than 15.0 percent of victims are not associ-

ated with at least one perpetrator.

■ In NCANDS, a child victim may have up to three perpetrators. A few states’ systems do

not have the capability of collecting and reporting data for all three perpetrator elds.

More information may be found in Appendix D.

■ The relationship categories listed under nonparent perpetrator include any perpetrator

relationship that was not identied as a parent.

■ The two parents of known sex category includes mother and father, two mothers, and two

fathers.

■ The two parents of known sex with nonparent category includes mother, father, and

nonparent; two mothers and nonparent; and two fathers and nonparent.

■ One or more parents of unknown sex includes up to three parents in any combination

of known and unknown sex. The parent(s) could have acted alone, together, or with a

nonparent.

■ Nonparent perpetrators counted in combination with parents (e.g., mother and

nonparent(s)) are not also counted in the individual categories listed under nonparent.

■ Multiple nonparental perpetrators that are in the same category are counted within that

category. For example, two child daycare providers are counted as child daycare providers.

■ Multiple nonparental perpetrators that are in different categories are counted in more than

one nonparental perpetrator.

chApter 4: Fatalities 58

Child Maltreatment 2022

■ Some states were not able to collect and report on group home and residential facility staff

perpetrators due to system limitations or jurisdictional issues. See also table 5–5.

Table 4–5 Child Fatalities Who Received Family Preservation Services within

the Previous 5 Years, 2022

■ Data is from the Child File and Agency File.

Table 4–6 Child Fatalities Who Were Reunited with Their Families within the

Previous 5 Years, 2022

■ Data is from the Child File and Agency File.

chApter 4: Fatalities 59

Child Maltreatment 2022

Table 4–1 Child Fatalities by Submission Type, 2022

State

Child Fatalities Reported in

the Child File

Child Fatalities Reported in

the Agency File Total Child Fatalities

Child Fatality Rates per

100,000 Children

Alabama

38 0 38 3.42

Alaska

- 8 8 4.53

Arizona

14 - 14 0.88

Arkansas

39 - 39 5.59

California

- 164 164 1.93

Colorado

40 0 40 3.29

Connecticut

15 0 15 2.05

Delaware

6 0 6 2.88

District of Columbia

3 0 3 2.41

Florida

86 - 86 2.00

Georgia

109 5 114 4.54

Hawaii

5 0 5 1.68

Idaho

7 1 8 1.73

Illinois

110 0 110 4.04

Indiana

62 - 62 3.95

Iowa

18 - 18 2.48

Kansas

8 0 8 1.16

Kentucky

12 0 12 1.19

Louisiana

28 1 29 2.73

Maine

3 - 3 1.21

Maryland

68 0 68 5.05

Massachusetts

- - - -

Michigan

57 4 61 2.89

Minnesota

25 0 25 1.93

Mississippi

69 3 72 10.62

Missouri

56 1 57

4.18

Montana

1 0 1 0.43

Nebraska

3 0 3 0.63

Nevada

14 1 15 2.17

New Hampshire

0 2 2 0.79

New Jersey

19 0 19 0.95

New Mexico

16 3 19 4.13

New York

105 - 105 2.63

North Carolina

- 93 93 4.05

North Dakota

6 0 6 3.28

Ohio

111 4 115 4.49

Oklahoma

29 0 29 3.04

Oregon

- 19 19 2.27

Pennsylvania

80 - 80 3.05

Puerto Rico

4 0 4 0.77

Rhode Island

2 - 2 0.98

South Carolina

34 4 38 3.40

South Dakota

13 - 13 5.93

Tennessee

34 0 34 2.21

Texas

175 1 176 2.36

Utah

15 - 15 1.61

Vermont

0 - 0 0.00

Virginia

39 - 39 2.09

Washington

- 31 31 1.88

West Virginia

8 0 8 2.27

Wisconsin

21 - 21 1.69

Wyoming

2 1 3 2.31

National

1,609 346

1,955 2.73

Reporting States

46 37 51 -

chApter 4: Fatalities 60

Child Maltreatment 2022

Table 4–2 Child Fatalities, 2018–2022

State 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Alabama 43 34 47 36 38

Alaska 2 1 2 6 8

Arizona 48 33 18 - 14

Arkansas 44 35 30 36 39

California 145 153 150 159 164

Colorado 40 25 24 31 40

Connecticut 8 4 9 14 15

Delaware 4 13 5 7 6

District of Columbia 5 3 4 2 3

Florida 111 114 101 84 86

Georgia 86 68 85 92 114

Hawaii 1 4 0 2 5

Idaho 3 3 10 3 8

Illinois 70 106 102 89 110

Indiana 80 116 56 57 62

Iowa 16 25 9 12 18

Kansas 9 16 10 10 8

Kentucky 6 12 9 11 12

Louisiana 25 24 18 23 29

Maine 3 3 1 8 3

Maryland 40 55 50 84 68

Massachusetts 14

13 - - -

Michigan 49 63 43 35 61

Minnesota 30 17 21 22 25

Mississippi 30 35 38 49 72

Missouri 36 46 44 75 57

Montana 2 2 5 2 1

Nebraska 0 5 2 1 3

Nevada 19 20 14 27 15

New Hampshire 0 2 2 3 2

New Jersey 18 19 17 10 19

New Mexico 12 11 13 10 19

New York 118 69 105 126 105

North Carolina 14 5 99 121 93

North Dakota 8 6 5 4 6

Ohio 106 79 94 98 115

Oklahoma 47 23 42 15 29

Oregon 26 23 17 18 19

Pennsylvania 45 54 67 65 80

Puerto Rico 3 5 5 7 4

Rhode Island 1 3 2 2 2

South Carolina 39 60 36 41 38

South Dakota 3 9 12 9 13

Tennessee 47 43 34

32 34

Texas 200 229 255 206 176

Utah 10 11 6 4 15

Vermont 1 1 0 1 0

Virginia 37 49 39 51 39

Washington 28 25 14 19 31

West Virginia 8 17 12 9 8

Wisconsin 24 34 32 22 21

Wyoming 1 0 3 2 3

National 1,765 1,825 1,818 1,852 1,955

Reporting States 52 52 51 50 51

chApter 4: Fatalities 61

Child Maltreatment 2022

Table 4–4 Child Fatalities by Relationship to Their Perpetrators, 2022

Table 4–3 Child Fatalities by Age, 2022

Age Child Population Child Fatalities Child Fatalities Percent

Child Fatalities Rate per

100,000 Children

<1 2,950,151 719 44.7 24.37

1 2,884,134 206 12.8 7.14

2 2,968,151 138 8.6 4.65

3 3,010,181 98 6.1 3.26

4 3,078,737 89 5.5 2.89

5 3,133,549 51 3.2 1.63

6 3,218,278 34 2.1 1.06

7 3,244,883 23 1.4 0.71

8 3,235,278 30 1.9 0.93

9 3,223,002 20 1.2 0.62

10 3,229,046 30 1.9 0.93

11 3,262,705 19 1.2 0.58

12 3,334,666 33 2.1 0.99

13 3,407,838 29 1.8 0.85

14 3,535,093 30 1.9 0.85

15 3,531,250 18 1.1 0.51

16 3,476,081 15 0.9 0.43

17 3,447,719 23 1.4 0.67

Unborn, Unknown,

and 18–21 - 4 0.2 N/A

National 58,170,742 1,609 100.0 N/A

Based on data from 46 states.

Perpetrator

Child Fatalities

by Reported Relationships Reported Relationships Percent

PARENT - -

Father Only 226 14.5

Father and Nonparent 21 1.3

Mother Only 473 30.2

Mother and Nonparent 161 10.3

Two Parents of Known Sex 363 23.2

Three Parents of Known Sex 2 0.1

Two Parents of Known Sex and

Nonparent 26 1.7

One or More Parents of Unknown Sex 8 0.5

Total Parents 1,280 81.8

NONPARENT

- -

Child Daycare Provider(s) 21 1.3

Foster Parent(s) 6 0.4

Friend(s) or Neighbor(s) 4 0.3

Group Home and Residential Facility Staff 4 0.3

Legal Guardian(s) 7 0.4

Other Professional(s) 2 0.1

Relative(s) 73 4.7

Unmarried Partner(s) of Parent 17 1.1

Other(s) 53 3.4

More Than One Nonparental Perpetrator

1.3

Total Nonparents 207 13.2

UNKNOWN 77 4.9

National 1,564 100.0

Based on data from 43 states.

chApter 4: Fatalities 62

Child Maltreatment 2022

Table 4–5 Child Fatalities Who Received Family Preservation

Services within the Previous 5 Years, 2022

State Child File Fatalities

Child File Fatalities Whose Families

Received Preservation Services in

the Previous 5 Years Agency File Fatalities

Agency File Fatalities Whose

Families Received Preservation

Services in the Previous 5 Years

Alabama 38 5 0 0

Alaska - - 8 2

Arizona - - - -

Arkansas 39 6 - -

California - - 164 23

Colorado - - - -

Connecticut 15 0 0 0

Delaware - - - -

District of Columbia 3 0 0 0

Florida 86 8 - -

Georgia 109 10 5 2

Hawaii - - - -

Idaho 7 0 1 1

Illinois 110 9 0 0

Indiana - - - -

Iowa - - - -

Kansas 8 2 0 0

Kentucky 12 2 0 0

Louisiana 28 4 1 0

Maine - - - -

Maryland - - - -

Massachusetts - - - -

Michigan - - - -

Minnesota 25 9 0 0

Mississippi 69 2 3 0

Missouri 56 4 1

Montana - - - -

Nebraska 3 0 0 0

Nevada 14 1 1 0

New Hampshire 0 0 2 0

New Jersey 19 1 0 0

New Mexico 16 0 3 0

New York - - - -

North Carolina - - 93 10

North Dakota 6 2 0 0

Ohio 111 0 4 0

Oklahoma 29 1 0 0

Oregon - - 19 9

Pennsylvania - - - -

Puerto Rico 4 0 0 0

Rhode Island 2 2 - -

South Carolina - - - -

South Dakota - - - -

Tennessee 34 7 0 0

Texas 175 21 1 0

Utah - - - -

Vermont 0 0 - -

Virginia - - - -

Washington - - 31 5

West Virginia - - - -

Wisconsin - - - -

Wyoming 2 1 1

National 1,020 97

338 52

National Percent - 9.5 - 15.4

Reporting States 28 28 29 29

chApter 4: Fatalities 63

Child Maltreatment 2022

Table 4–6 Child Fatalities Who Were Reunited with Their Families

within the Previous 5 Years, 2022

State Child File Fatalities

Child File Fatalities Who Were

Reunited with Their Families in the

Previous 5 Years Agency File Fatalities

Agency File Fatalities Who Were

Reunited with Their Families in the

Previous 5 Years

Alabama 38 0 0 0

Alaska - - 8 2

Arizona - - - -

Arkansas 39 0 - -

California - - 164 10

Colorado 40 3 - -

Connecticut 15 0 0 0

Delaware 6 1 0 0

District of Columbia 3 0 0 0

Florida 86 3 - -

Georgia 109 4 5 0

Hawaii 5 0 0 0

Idaho 7 0 1 0

Illinois 110 4 0 0

Indiana 62 7 - -

Iowa - - - -

Kansas 8 1 0 0

Kentucky 12 1 0 0

Louisiana 28 0 1 0

Maine - - - -

Maryland 68 9 - -

Massachusetts - - - -

Michigan - - - -

Minnesota 25 1 0 0

Mississippi 69 0 3 0

Missouri 56 1 1

Montana - - - -

Nebraska 3 0 0 0

Nevada 14 1 1 0

New Hampshire 0 0 2 0

New Jersey 19 0 0 0

New Mexico 16 0 3 0

New York - - - -

North Carolina - - 93 1

North Dakota 6 0 0 0

Ohio 111 4 4 0

Oklahoma 29 1 0 0

Oregon - - 19 0

Pennsylvania - - - -

Puerto Rico 4 0 0 0

Rhode Island 2 0 - -

South Carolina 34 0 4 0

South Dakota - - - -

Tennessee 34 2 0 0

Texas 175 8 1 0

Utah - - - -

Vermont 0 0 - -

Virginia - - - -

Washington - - 31 2

West Virginia - - - -

Wisconsin 21 0 - -

Wyoming 2 1 1

National 1,256 52

342 15

National Percent - 4.1 - 4.4

Reporting States 35 35 32 32

chApter 5: Perpetrators 64

Child Maltreatment 2022

Perpetrators

NCANDS denes a perpetrator as a person who is determined to have caused or knowingly

allowed the maltreatment of a child. NCANDS does not collect information about persons who

are alleged to be perpetrators and not found to have perpetrated abuse and neglect. This chapter

includes perpetrators of children with substantiated and indicated dispositions (see chapter 3 for

denitions). The majority of perpetrators are caregivers of their victims.

One state recoded the disposition of children who would have previously received an alternative

response victim disposition to an indicated disposition and submitted or resubmitted les for

FFYs 2018–2022. Children with alternative response dispositions are not considered maltreat-

ment victims and do not have perpetrators. Children with indicated dispositions are considered

maltreatment victims. The state was not able to include perpetrators for indicated dispositions

in its FFY 2018–2022 data submissions and is excluded from the majority of this chapter.

Number of Perpetrators (unique count of perpetrators)

The analyses in this chapter use a unique count of perpetrators, which means identifying and

counting a perpetrator once, regardless of the number of times the perpetrator is the subject

of a report. For FFY 2022, 52 states reported a unique count of 434,090 perpetrators. This is

a 20.6 percent decrease from FFY 2018 when 52 states reported 546,836 unique perpetrators.

See table 5–1 and related notes.

Perpetrator Demographics (unique count of perpetrators)

The majority (68.8%) of perpetrators are in the age range of 25–44 years old. Perpetrators in

the age group 25–34 are 39.9 percent of all perpetrators. Perpetrators younger than 18 years

old accounted for 1.9 percent of all perpetrators. Some states have laws that limit the youngest

age that a person can be considered a perpetrator. (See Appendix D, State Commentary.) The

perpetrator age group of 25–34 have the highest rate at 3.9 per 1,000 adults in the population of

the same age. Older adults in the age group of 35–44 have the second highest rate at 2.9, while

young adults in the age group of 18–24 have a rate of 1.9 per 1,000 adults in the population of

the same age.

See table 5–2, exhibit 5–A, and related notes.

Based on data from 50 reporting states, slightly more than one-half (51.1%) of perpetrators are

female and 47.7 percent of perpetrators are male; 1.1 percent of perpetrators are of unknown

sex. See table 5–3 and related notes. The three largest percentages of perpetrators are White

(47.4%), Black or African-American (21.0%), and Hispanic (20.3%). Race or ethnicity is

CHAPTER 5

North Carolina

Rates are not calculated for perpetrators younger than 18 years due to the variations in state policy as to how young a

perpetrator can be.

Child Maltreatment 2022

chApter 5: Perpetrators 65

unknown or not reported for 6.1

percent of perpetrators. See table 5–4,

exhibit 5–B, and related notes.

Perpetrator Relationship

(unique count of perpetrators and unique

count of relationships)

In this analysis, single relationships

are counted only once per category.

Perpetrators with two or more rela-

tionships are counted in the multiple

relationships category. In the scenarios

below, the perpetrator is counted once in

the parent category:

■ The perpetrator is a parent to one

victim and in two or more reports

(one victim is reported at

least twice).

■ The perpetrator is a parent

to two victims and in one

report.

In the following scenarios, the

perpetrator is counted once

in the multiple relationships

category:

■ The perpetrator is a

parent to one victim and

is an unmarried partner of

parent to a second victim

in the same report.

■ The perpetrator is a parent

to one victim in one report

and an unmarried partner of parent to a second victim in a second report.

The majority (76.0%) of perpetrators are a parent of their victim, 7.0 percent of perpetrators

are a relative other than a parent, 4.2 percent are an unmarried partner of the parent, and 4.1

percent have multiple relationships to their victims. Nearly 4.0 percent (3.9%) of perpetrators

have an “other” relationship to their victims. See table 5–5 and related notes. According to

Appendix D, State Commentary, the NCANDS category of “other” perpetrator relationship

includes foster sibling, nonrelative, babysitter, etc.

Exhibit 5–B Perpetrators by Race or Ethnicity, 2022

The largest percentages of perpetrators are White,

Black or African-American, and Hispanic

Based on data from 48 states. See table 5–4.

Exhibit 5–A Perpetrators by Age, 2022

Perpetrators ages 25 through 44 have the highest rates per 1,000

Based on data from 50 states. See table 5–2.

chApter 5: Perpetrators 66

Child Maltreatment 2022

Exhibit and Table Notes

The following pages contain the data tables referenced in chapter 5. Specic information

about state submissions can be found in Appendix D, State Commentary. Additional informa-

tion regarding the exhibits and tables is provided below.

General

During data analyses, thresholds are set to ensure data quality is balanced with the need to

report data from as many states as possible. States may be excluded from an analysis for

data quality issues. Exclusion rules are listed in the table notes below. Not every table has an

exclusion rule or notes.

■ The data for all tables are from the Child File.

■ Rates are per 1,000 adults in the population.

■ Rates are calculated by dividing the perpetrator count by the adult population count and

multiplying by 1,000.

■ NCANDS uses the population estimates that are released annually by the U.S. Census

Bureau. These estimates are available in Appendix C, State Characteristics.

■ National totals and calculations appear in a single row labeled National instead of separate

rows labeled total, rate, or percent.

■ The row labeled Reporting States displays the count of states that provided data for that

analysis.

■ Unless otherwise noted, all tables use a unique count of perpetrators.

■ Dashes are inserted into cells without any data.

Table 5–2 Perpetrators by Age, 2022

■ In NCANDS, valid perpetrator ages are 6–75 years old. If a perpetrator is reported with an

age of 76 years or older, the age is recoded to 75.

■ Some states have laws restricting how young a perpetrator can be. More information may be

found in appendix D.

■ Rates are not calculated for perpetrators younger than 18 years.

■ If a perpetrator appears in two or more reports, the age at the time of the earliest report is

used.

■ States are excluded from this analysis if fewer than 85.0 percent of victims are associated

with one or more perpetrators.

■ States are excluded from this analysis if there are known data quality issues with reporting

age.

Table 5–3 Perpetrators by Sex, 2022

■ The category of unknown sex includes not reported.

■ States are excluded from this analysis if fewer than 85.0 percent of victims are associated

with one or more perpetrators.

■ States are excluded if more than 15.0 percent of perpetrators are reported with an unknown or

missing sex.

Table 5–4 Perpetrators by Race or Ethnicity, 2022

■ Counts associated with each racial group are exclusive and do not include Hispanic ethnicity.

■ Perpetrators reported with Hispanic ethnicity are counted as Hispanic, regardless of any

reported race.

■ States are excluded from this analysis if more than 30.0 percent of perpetrators have an

unknown or missing race or ethnicity.

Child Maltreatment 2022

chApter 5: Perpetrators 67

■ Only those states that reported both race and ethnicity separately are included in this

analysis.

■ States are excluded from this analysis if fewer than 85.0 percent of victims are associated

with one or more perpetrators.

Table 5–5 Perpetrators by Relationship to Their Victims, 2022

■ Some states are not able to collect and report on group home and residential facility staff

perpetrators due to system limitations or jurisdictional issues. More information may be

found in appendix D.

■ States are excluded from this analysis if more than 25.0 percent of perpetrators are reported

with an unknown or missing relationship.

■ States are excluded from this analysis if fewer than 85.0 percent of victims are associated

with one or more perpetrators.

Child Maltreatment 2022

chApter 5: Perpetrators 68

Table 5–1 Perpetrators, 2018–2022

State 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Alabama 8,791 8,376 8,432 8,387 8,162

Alaska 2,032 2,294 2,425 2,023 1,964

Arizona 15,395 12,909 9,684 - 12,151

Arkansas 7,424 7,118 7,809 8,138 7,635

California 58,362 55,845 53,124 49,073 45,289

Colorado 10,253 10,478 9,820 9,416 8,080

Connecticut 6,292 6,497 5,171 4,541 4,090

Delaware 976 977 919 896 829

District of Columbia 1,136 1,257 1,054 1,059 1,016

Florida 27,844 24,927 21,599 20,933 18,647

Georgia 8,612 8,107 6,730 7,344 7,897

Hawaii 1,098 1,158 1,150 1,220 1,144

Idaho 1,774 1,774 1,764 2,016 1,702

Illinois 22,275 23,858 25,303 25,475 23,359

Indiana 20,159 18,477 18,036 17,185 15,302

Iowa 8,529 8,327 7,625 8,158 8,003

Kansas 2,594 2,473 1,998 1,786 1,551

Kentucky 17,400 14,731 12,443 11,303 9,399

Louisiana 7,983 7,574 6,091 5,659 6,565

Maine 3,021 3,874 4,030 3,693 3,258

Maryland 6,507 6,559 6,424 5,715 5,967

Massachusetts 20,750

20,075 17,947 18,261 17,811

Michigan 30,705 26,210 21,484 19,348 18,417

Minnesota 5,617 4,951 4,709 4,000 3,768

Mississippi 8,252 7,793 6,812 7,107 7,611

Missouri 5,108 4,252 4,015 3,945 3,625

Montana 2,704 2,686 2,630 2,142 1,870

Nebraska 1,859 2,022 1,648 1,684 1,338

Nevada 4,120 4,000 4,094 4,465 4,643

New Hampshire 1,154 1,112 1,008 875 913

New Jersey 4,589 4,026 2,826 2,517 2,434

New Mexico 6,832 6,702 5,852 4,848 4,668

New York 54,550 52,669 45,922 43,478 38,597

North Carolina 3,995 3,718 3,891 3,635 3,752

North Dakota 1,558 1,344 1,200 1,037 852

Ohio 20,567 21,190 19,599 19,772 18,424

Oklahoma 12,929 12,901 12,487 11,595 11,332

Oregon 9,486 10,056 8,541 7,964 7,969

Pennsylvania 4,865 4,941 4,615 4,765 5,040

Puerto Rico 3,347 3,666 2,734 3,786 3,472

Rhode Island 2,846 2,508 2,141 2,023 1,948

South Carolina 14,350 13,630 10,727 11,503 10,930

South Dakota 933 1,099 1,097 992 1,028

Tennessee 9,116 9,428 8,493

7,608 6,828

Texas 49,563 49,969 50,567 50,820 42,240

Utah 7,784 7,851 7,197 6,676 6,387

Vermont 782 709 419 308 556

Virginia 5,074 5,005 4,728 4,180 3,882

Washington 3,881 3,693 3,315 3,036 2,986

West Virginia 6,252 5,959 5,359 5,475 4,821

Wisconsin 4,031 3,668 3,345 3,431 3,325

Wyoming 780 849 729 652 613

National 546,836 526,272 481,762 455,948 434,090

Reporting States 52 52 52 51 52

Child Maltreatment 2022

chApter 5: Perpetrators 69

Table 5–2 Perpetrators by Age, 2022 (continues next page)

State 6 –11 12–17 18–24 25–34 35–44 45–54 55–64 65 –74 75 and Older Unknown

Total Unique

Perpetrators

Alabama - 269 1,467 3,196 1,861 535 234 79 18 503 8,162

Alaska - 5 232 784 587 196 91 26 3 40 1,964

Arizona - 60 1,756 5,119 3,465 966 310 99 24 352 12,151

Arkansas 116 368 1,545 2,839 1,632 468 236 73 24 334 7,635

California 43 445 5,229 18,421 13,887 4,445 1,518 461 166 674 45,289

Colorado 23 200 1,017 3,248 2,424 712 221 69 56 110 8,080

Connecticut 2 10 437 1,561 1,338 458 158 41 13 72 4,090

Delaware 2 22 87 343 245 66 36 24 4 - 829

District of Columbia - 4 117 476 284 72 23 6 0 34 1,016

Florida - 57 1,980 7,587 5,869 1,716 645 250 79 464 18,647

Georgia

72 976 3,434 2,352 677 267 95 19 4 7,897

Hawaii - 3 99 389 398 153 55 18 5 24 1,144

Idaho - 14 294 683 497 151 50 11 2 - 1,702

Illinois 24 410 3,424 9,924 6,422 1,945 666 207 45 292 23,359

Indiana 12 379 3,026 6,507 3,651 1,061 379 116 40 131 15,302

Iowa - 138 1,237 3,285 2,389 620 233 74 18 9 8,003

Kansas 4 105 197 547 461 134 58 18 8 19 1,551

Kentucky 1 51 1,240 3,903 2,750 876 390 134 53 1 9,399

Louisiana 2 52 1,217 2,903 1,744 400 174 54 14 5 6,565

Maine - 5 315 1,311 1,165 304 106 27 5 20 3,258

Maryland - - - - - - - - - - -

Massachusetts - 64

1,638

6,443 6,025 2,208 687 202 48 496 17,811

Michigan 2 54 2,256 8,005 5,727 1,659 532 129 35 18 18,417

Minnesota 18 149 452 1,433 1,226 324 121 38 7 - 3,768

Mississippi 68 274 1,099 2,800 2,195 670 316 136 28 25 7,611

Missouri - 31 470 1,285 1,032 375 186 67 20 159 3,625

Montana - 8 217 743 635 175 53 18 2 19 1,870

Nebraska - 28 196 541 397 129 35 9 2 1 1,338

Nevada - 17 557 2,082 1,418 390 138 31 10 - 4,643

New Hampshire - 9 84 360 318 84 38 9 2 9 913

New Jersey - 3 180 903 867 271 122 36 13 39 2,434

New Mexico 2 18 433 1,820 1,391 379 126 45 9 445 4,668

New York 4 108 3,952 14,605

12,847

4,874 1,673 440 86 8 38,597

North Carolina - - - - - - - - - - -

North Dakota - 3 108 382 255 47 10 4 0 43 852

Ohio 46 853 2,713 6,762 4,580 1,444 600 212 48 1,166 18,424

Oklahoma 1 58 1,652 4,656 3,255 992 374 114 26 204 11,332

Oregon 1 176 939 3,049 2,465 739 245 83 41 231 7,969

Pennsylvania - 197 760 1,660 1,340 555 261 121 27 119 5,040

Puerto Rico 4 23 462 1,372 1,032 350 156 49 18 6 3,472

Rhode Island - 30 264 840 566 173 46 12 2 15 1,948

South Carolina 19 39 1,249 4,528 3,462 1,057 359 147 34 36 10,930

South Dakota - 10 142 465 292 74 28 2 2 13 1,028

Tennessee 12 384 997 2,254 1,303 488

253

88 34 1,015 6,828

Texas 168 1,714 8,312 17,848 9,824 2,688 1,135 406 112 33 42,240

Utah 18 565 819 2,078 2,007 624 193 61 19 3 6,387

Vermont - 39 82 167 154 45 28 10 1 30 556

Virginia - 36 455 1,485 1,081 370 156 70 24 205 3,882

Washington - 2 294 1,182 1,051 311 89 21 8 28 2,986

West Virginia 4 14 501 1,863 1,353 415 175 77 9 410 4,821

Wisconsin 3 24 405 1,137 808 241 94 24 9 580 3,325

Wyoming 1 7 64 263 206 42 11 6 1 12 613

National 601 7,606 57,644 169,471 122,533 38,148 14,090 4,549 1,273 8,456 424,371

Reporting States 27 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 46 50

Child Maltreatment 2022

chApter 5: Perpetrators 70

Table 5–2 Perpetrators by Age, 2022

State

18–24 Rate

per 1,000

Adults

25–34 Rate

per 1,000

Adults

35–44 Rate

per 1,000

Adults

45–54 Rate

per 1,000

Adults

55–64 Rate

per 1,000

Adults

65–74 Rate

per 1,000

Adults

75 and Older

Rate per

1,000 Adults

Alabama 3.0 4.9 3.0 0.9 0.4 0.1 0.0

Alaska 3.4 6.9 5.7 2.4 1.0 0.4 0.1

Arizona 2.4 5.0 3.7 1.1 0.4 0.1 0.0

Arkansas 5.3 7.1 4.3 1.3 0.6 0.2 0.1

California 1.4 3.2 2.6 0.9 0.3 0.1 0.1

Colorado 1.8 3.5 2.9 1.0 0.3 0.1 0.2

Connecticut 1.2 3.4 2.9 1.0 0.3 0.1 0.0

Delaware 1.0 2.7 2.0 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.0

District of Columbia 1.7 3.3 2.6 1.0 0.4 0.1 0.0

Florida 1.1 2.7 2.1 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.0

Georgia 0.9 2.3 1.6 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.0

Hawaii 0.8 2.0 2.1 0.9 0.3 0.1 0.0

Idaho 1.5 2.7 2.0 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.0

Illinois 2.9 5.8 3.9 1.2 0.4 0.2 0.0

Indiana 4.5 7.3 4.2 1.3 0.4 0.2 0.1

Iowa 3.8 8.2 5.9 1.7 0.6

0.2 0.1

Kansas 0.6 1.5 1.2 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.0

Kentucky 3.0 6.6 4.9 1.6 0.7 0.3 0.2

Louisiana 2.8 4.8 2.9 0.8 0.3 0.1 0.0

Maine 2.9 7.8 6.9 1.8 0.5 0.1 0.0

Maryland - - - - - - -

Massachusetts 2.3 6.6 6.7 2.6 0.7 0.3 0.1

Michigan 2.4 6.1 4.7 1.4 0.4 0.1 0.0

Minnesota 0.9 1.9 1.6 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.0

Mississippi 3.8 7.4 6.0 1.9 0.9 0.4 0.1

Missouri 0.8 1.6 1.3 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.0

Montana 2.1 5.1 4.4 1.4 0.4 0.1 0.0

Nebraska 1.0 2.1 1.5 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.0

Nevada 2.1 4.5 3.2 1.0 0.4 0.1 0.0

New Hampshire 0.7 2.0 1.8 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.0

New Jersey 0.2 0.8 0.7 0.2 0.1

0.0 0.0

New Mexico 2.1 6.5 5.2 1.6 0.5 0.2 0.1

New York 2.2 5.3 5.1

2.0 0.6 0.2 0.1

North Carolina - - - - - - -

North Dakota 1.2 3.5 2.5 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.0

Ohio 2.5 4.4 3.1 1.0 0.4 0.2 0.1

Oklahoma 4.1 8.6 6.2 2.2 0.8 0.3 0.1

Oregon 2.5 5.1 4.2 1.4 0.5 0.2 0.1

Pennsylvania 0.6 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.0

Puerto Rico 1.6 3.2 2.7 0.9 0.4 0.1 0.0

Rhode Island 2.4 5.5 4.1 1.3 0.3 0.1 0.0

South Carolina 2.5 6.7 5.3 1.7 0.5 0.2 0.1

South Dakota 1.6 4.1 2.6 0.8 0.2 0.0 0.0

Tennessee 1.5 2.3 1.5 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.1

Texas 2.7 4.1 2.3 0.7 0.3 0.2 0.1

Utah 2.0 4.2 4.3 1.7 0.6 0.2 0.1

Vermont 1.2 2.2 1.9 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.0

Virginia 0.6 1.3 0.9

0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0

Washington 0.4 1.0 0.9 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0

West Virginia 3.1

8.7 6.4 1.9 0.7 0.3 0.1

Wisconsin 0.7 1.6 1.1 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0

Wyoming 1.2 3.6 2.7 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.0

National 1.9 3.9 2.9 1.0 0.3 0.1 0.1

Reporting States - - - - - - -

chApter 5: Perpetrators 71

Child Maltreatment 2022

Table 5–3 Perpetrators by Sex, 2022

State Men Women Unknown Total Perpetrators Men Percent Women Percent Unknown Percent

Alabama 3,499 4,639 24 8,162 42.9 56.8 0.3

Alaska 893 1,048 23 1,964 45.5 53.4 1.2

Arizona - - - - - - -

Arkansas 3,418 4,058 159 7,635 44.8 53.1 2.1

California 20,619 24,307 363 45,289 45.5 53.7 0.8

Colorado 4,340 3,697 43 8,080 53.7 45.8 0.5

Connecticut 2,054 1,997 39 4,090 50.2 48.8 1.0

Delaware 518 311 - 829 62.5 37.5 -

District of Columbia 326 674 16 1,016 32.1 66.3 1.6

Florida 8,866 9,445 336 18,647 47.5 50.7 1.8

Georgia 2,795 5,085 17 7,897 35.4 64.4 0.2

Hawaii 520 609 15 1,144 45.5 53.2 1.3

Idaho 704 997 1 1,702 41.4 58.6 0.1

Illinois 10,998 12,177 184 23,359 47.1 52.1 0.8

Indiana 6,583 8,679 40 15,302 43.0 56.7 0.3

Iowa 3,725 4,262 16 8,003 46.5

53.3 0.2

Kansas 883 660 8 1,551 56.9 42.6 0.5

Kentucky 4,396 4,970 33 9,399 46.8 52.9 0.4

Louisiana 2,051 4,484 30 6,565 31.2 68.3 0.5

Maine 1,654 1,602 2 3,258 50.8 49.2 0.1

Maryland 3,227 2,514 226 5,967 54.1 42.1 3.8

Massachusetts 8,023 9,051 737 17,811 45.0 50.8 4.1

Michigan 9,150 9,234 33 18,417 49.7 50.1 0.2

Minnesota 2,037 1,731 - 3,768 54.1 45.9 -

Mississippi 3,225 4,307 79 7,611 42.4 56.6 1.0

Missouri 2,163 1,329 133 3,625 59.7 36.7 3.7

Montana 860 980 30 1,870 46.0 52.4 1.6

Nebraska 696 642 - 1,338 52.0 48.0 -

Nevada 2,203 2,439 1 4,643 47.4 52.5 0.0

New Hampshire 449 458 6 913 49.2 50.2 0.7

New Jersey 1,221 1,209 4 2,434 50.2 49.7 0.2

New Mexico 1,984 2,573 111 4,668 42.5 55.1 2.4

New York 19,115 19,478 4

38,597 49.5 50.5 0.0

North Carolina - - - - - - -

North Dakota 272 557 23 852 31.9 65.4 2.7

Ohio 9,048 8,993 383 18,424 49.1 48.8 2.1

Oklahoma 5,618 5,669 45 11,332 49.6 50.0 0.4

Oregon 4,667 3,164 138 7,969 58.6 39.7 1.7

Pennsylvania 3,354 1,605 81 5,040 66.5 31.8 1.6

Puerto Rico 1,336 2,136 - 3,472 38.5 61.5 -

Rhode Island 998 945 5 1,948 51.2 48.5 0.3

South Carolina 4,300 6,624 6 10,930 39.3 60.6 0.1

South Dakota 373 646 9 1,028 36.3 62.8 0.9

Tennessee 3,524 2,844 460 6,828 51.6 41.7 6.7

Texas 21,545 20,440 255 42,240 51.0 48.4 0.6

Utah 3,752 2,597 38 6,387 58.7 40.7 0.6

Vermont 383 173 - 556 68.9 31.1 -

Virginia 1,836 1,970 76 3,882 47.3 50.7 2.0

Washington 1,504 1,473 9 2,986 50.4 49.3 0.3

West Virginia 2,057

2,761 3 4,821 42.7 57.3 0.1

Wisconsin 1,586 1,289 450 3,325 47.7 38.8 13.5

Wyoming 269 344 - 613 43.9 56.1 -

National 199,617 213,876 4,694 418,187 47.7 51.1 1.1

Reporting States 50 50 44 50 - - -

chApter 5: Perpetrators 72

Child Maltreatment 2022

Table 5–4 Perpetrators by Race or Ethnicity, 2022 (continues next page)

State

American

Indian or

Alaska Native Asian

Black or

African-

American Hispanic

Two or More

Races

Native

Hawaiian or

Other Pacic

Islander White Unknown

Total

Perpetrators

Alabama 6 16 2,248 307 48 6 5,303 228 8,162

Alaska 1,025 14 60 6 88 42 526 203 1,964

Arizona 568 48 1,195 39 297 34 6,639 3,331 12,151

Arkansas 7 17 1,522 516 391 38 4,856 288 7,635

California 447 1,302 6,215 21,564 0 146 11,653 3,962 45,289

Colorado - - - - - - - - -

Connecticut 5 34 978 1,234 71 3 1,604 161 4,090

Delaware 0 3 375 127 2 0 322 - 829

District of Columbia 0 1 728 90 2 0 11 184 1,016

Florida 24 100 5,216 2,738 205 17 9,108 1,239 18,647

Georgia 7 24 3,112 516 74 6 3,849 309 7,897

Hawaii 6 122 22 49

294 310 252 89 1,144

Idaho 35 3 19

175 21 2 1,061 386 1,702

Illinois 11 269 7,164 3,812 215 7 11,447 434 23,359

Indiana 6 64 2,882 1,018 352 17 10,793 170 15,302

Iowa 112 54 1,132 632 87 42 5,855 89 8,003

Kansas 14 13 186 189 28 3 1,013 105 1,551

Kentucky 5 19 881 268 242 5 7,795 184 9,399

Louisiana 20 12 2,984 162 29 3 3,053 302 6,565

Maine 41 12 85 84 76 5 2,484 471 3,258

Maryland - - - - - - - - -

Massachusetts 26 298 2,450 4,760 396 19 7,613 2,249 17,811

Michigan 92 83 5,735 1,184 893 9 10,350 71 18,417

Minnesota 289 112 591 456 398 3 1,824 95 3,768

Mississippi 16 11 2,722 159 31 3 3,813 856

7,611

Missouri 11 7 442 230 12 7 2,605

311 3,625

Montana 311 2 17 66 42 3 1,042 387 1,870

Nebraska 81 11 175 200 50 1 689 131 1,338

Nevada 23 75 1,275 1,152 103 65 1,576 374 4,643

New Hampshire 2 5 17 39 14 1 743 92 913

New Jersey 6 30 654 731 18 2 899 94 2,434

New Mexico 434 10 125 2,382 54 3 1,020 640 4,668

New York 153 1,128 11,127 10,176 677 21 14,935 380 38,597

North Carolina - - - - - - - - -

North Dakota 189 2 61 29 21 4 459 87 852

Ohio 15 50 4,638 759 539 14 11,174 1,235 18,424

Oklahoma 590 43 1,206 1,623 2,486 26 5,237 121 11,332

Oregon 172 52 331 852 145 35 4,826 1,556 7,969

Pennsylvania 7 42

1,102 655 65 1 2,747 421 5,040

Puerto Rico 5

0 33 3,173 3 0 88 170 3,472

Rhode Island 14 25 299 512 52 1 983 62 1,948

South Carolina 17 20 4,105 580 97 8 5,302 801 10,930

South Dakota 440 1 25 65 90 2 372 33 1,028

Tennessee - - - - - - - - -

Texas 80 321 9,571 17,326 398 64 13,042 1,438 42,240

Utah 135 55 217 1,359 81 137 4,346 57 6,387

Vermont 0 6 23 6 0 0 465 56 556

Virginia 2 25 893 443 30 7 2,148 334 3,882

Washington 126 44 223 497 154 65 1,628 249 2,986

West Virginia 0 2 174 37 97 2 4,457 52 4,821

Wisconsin 127 44 578 273 51 1 1,673 578 3,325

Wyoming 21 2 13 64 0 2

484 27 613

National 5,723 4,633 85,826 83,314 9,519

1,192 194,164 25,092 409,463

Reporting States 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 47 48

Child Maltreatment 2022

chApter 5: Perpetrators 73

Table 5–4 Perpetrators by Race or Ethnicity, 2022

State

American

Indian or

Alaska Native

Percent Asian Percent

Black or

African-

American

Percent

Hispanic

Percent

Two or More

Races Percent

Native

Hawaiian or

Other Pacic

Islander

Percent

White

Percent

Unknown

Percent

Alabama 0.1 0.2 27.5 3.8 0.6 0.1 65.0 2.8

Alaska 52.2 0.7 3.1 0.3 4.5 2.1 26.8 10.3

Arizona 4.7 0.4 9.8 0.3 2.4 0.3 54.6 27.4

Arkansas 0.1 0.2 19.9 6.8 5.1 0.5 63.6 3.8

California 1.0 2.9 13.7 47.6 0.0 0.3 25.7 8.7

Colorado - - - - - - - -

Connecticut 0.1 0.8 23.9 30.2 1.7 0.1 39.2 3.9

Delaware 0.0 0.4 45.2 15.3 0.2 0.0 38.8 -

District of Columbia 0.0 0.1 71.7 8.9 0.2 0.0 1.1 18.1

Florida 0.1 0.5 28.0 14.7 1.1 0.1 48.8 6.6

Georgia 0.1 0.3 39.4 6.5 0.9 0.1 48.7 3.9

Hawaii 0.5 10.7 1.9 4.3 25.7 27.1 22.0 7.8

Idaho 2.1 0.2

1.1 10.3 1.2 0.1 62.3 22.7

Illinois 0.0 1.2 30.7 16.3 0.9 0.0 49.0

1.9

Indiana 0.0 0.4 18.8 6.7 2.3 0.1 70.5 1.1

Iowa 1.4 0.7 14.1 7.9 1.1 0.5 73.2 1.1

Kansas 0.9 0.8 12.0 12.2 1.8 0.2 65.3 6.8

Kentucky 0.1 0.2 9.4 2.9 2.6 0.1 82.9 2.0

Louisiana 0.3 0.2 45.5 2.5 0.4 0.0 46.5 4.6

Maine 1.3 0.4 2.6 2.6 2.3 0.2 76.2 14.5

Maryland - - - - - - - -

Massachusetts 0.1 1.7 13.8 26.7 2.2 0.1 42.7 12.6

Michigan 0.5 0.5 31.1 6.4 4.8 0.0 56.2 0.4

Minnesota 7.7 3.0 15.7 12.1 10.6 0.1 48.4 2.5

Mississippi 0.2 0.1 35.8 2.1 0.4 0.0 50.1 11.2

Missouri 0.3 0.2 12.2 6.3 0.3 0.2 71.9 8.6

Montana 16.6 0.1 0.9 3.5 2.2 0.2 55.7 20.7

Nebraska 6.1

0.8 13.1 14.9 3.7 0.1 51.5 9.8

Nevada 0.5 1.6 27.5 24.8 2.2 1.4

33.9 8.1

New Hampshire 0.2 0.5 1.9 4.3 1.5 0.1 81.4 10.1

New Jersey 0.2 1.2 26.9 30.0 0.7 0.1 36.9 3.9

New Mexico 9.3 0.2 2.7 51.0 1.2 0.1 21.9 13.7

New York 0.4 2.9 28.8 26.4 1.8 0.1 38.7 1.0

North Carolina - - - - - - - -

North Dakota 22.2 0.2 7.2 3.4 2.5 0.5 53.9 10.2

Ohio 0.1 0.3 25.2 4.1 2.9 0.1 60.6 6.7

Oklahoma 5.2 0.4 10.6 14.3 21.9 0.2 46.2 1.1

Oregon 2.2 0.7 4.2 10.7 1.8 0.4 60.6 19.5

Pennsylvania 0.1 0.8 21.9 13.0 1.3 0.0 54.5 8.4

Puerto Rico 0.1 0.0 1.0 91.4 0.1 0.0 2.5 4.9

Rhode Island 0.7 1.3 15.3 26.3 2.7 0.1 50.5 3.2

South Carolina 0.2 0.2 37.6 5.3 0.9 0.1 48.5 7.3

South Dakota

42.8 0.1 2.4 6.3 8.8 0.2 36.2 3.2

Tennessee - - - - -

- - -

Texas 0.2 0.8 22.7 41.0 0.9 0.2 30.9 3.4

Utah 2.1 0.9 3.4 21.3 1.3 2.1 68.0 0.9

Vermont 0.0 1.1 4.1 1.1 0.0 0.0 83.6 10.1

Virginia 0.1 0.6 23.0 11.4 0.8 0.2 55.3 8.6

Washington 4.2 1.5 7.5 16.6 5.2 2.2 54.5 8.3

West Virginia 0.0 0.0 3.6 0.8 2.0 0.0 92.4 1.1

Wisconsin 3.8 1.3 17.4 8.2 1.5 0.0 50.3 17.4

Wyoming 3.4 0.3 2.1 10.4 0.0 0.3 79.0 4.4

National 1.4 1.1 21.0 20.3 2.3 0.3 47.4 6.1

Reporting States - - - - - - - -

Child Maltreatment 2022

chApter 5: Perpetrators 74

Table 5–5 Perpetrators by Relationship to Their Victims, 2022 (continues next page)

State Parent

Child Daycare

Provider Foster Parent Friend and Neighbor

Group Home

and Residential

Facility Staff L e g a l G u a r d i a n

Multiple

Relationships

Alabama 5,769 19 14 138 21 37 396

Alaska 1,639 - 31 - - 9 70

Arizona - - - - - - -

Arkansas 5,111 44 12 122 3 13 273

California 38,818 - 169 - 9 - 1,410

Colorado 5,754 14 6 1 2 3 510

Connecticut 3,099 20 15 25 27 81 213

Delaware 556 - - - - 4 35

District of Columbia 958 - 2 - - 4 17

Florida 13,239 26 3 - - 21 1,238

Georgia 6,437 26 28 13 11 50 147

Hawaii 987 - 5 - - 21 46

Idaho 1,548 2 3 13 - 12 15

Illinois 18,920 168 120 - 16 - 1,056

Indiana 11,855 41 25 343 1 47 775

Iowa 6,303

66 10 - 16

67 292

Kansas 1,049 - 6 8 5 - 23

Kentucky 7,050 5 4 194 - 210 633

Louisiana - - - - - - -

Maine - - - - - - -

Maryland 3,065 - 24 - 36 23 214

Massachusetts 14,225 86 47 - 68 104 924

Michigan 13,747 - 73 902 32 75 1,545

Minnesota 2,738 33 45 14 3 38 227

Mississippi 5,336 25 76 164 16 8 241

Missouri 1,990 24 12 109 45 - 168

Montana 1,665 8 12 - 2 7 14

Nebraska 1,038 10 12 - 3 2 88

Nevada 3,869 - 5 121 15 1 218

New Hampshire 772 - - - - 9 41

New Jersey 1,845 16 5 41 2 - 87

New Mexico 4,003 - 3 1 - 53 135

New York 32,314 228 162

- 79 135 378

North Carolina - - - - - - -

North Dakota 701 - 1 19 - - 41

Ohio 11,511 28 67 162 34 - 1,082

Oklahoma 9,110 60 57 - 16 116 612

Oregon 5,300 5 - - - 32 629

Pennsylvania 2,783 19 12 113 15 8 95

Puerto Rico 2,679 - 10 - 25 5 278

Rhode Island 1,539 23 17 - 36 11 128

South Carolina 9,305 1 19 - 15 91 474

South Dakota 846 13 2 - - 3 57

Tennessee 3,710 7 18 410 11 50 88

Texas 31,538 290 60 211 83 - 610

Utah 4,121 12 6 249 23 21 356

Vermont 309 4 4 65 - - 11

Virginia 2,781 64 13 - 11 27 145

Washington 2,537 20 10 1 -

- 78

West Virginia 3,540

2 10 - 4 57 374

Wisconsin 1,971 19 11 30 5 6 128

Wyoming 531 2 1 - 2 4 14

National Total 310,511 1,430 1,247 3,469 692 1,465 16,629

National Percent 76.0 0.4 0.3 0.8 0.2 0.4 4.1

Reporting States 48 35 45 25 34 38 48

Child Maltreatment 2022

chApter 5: Perpetrators 75

Table 5–5 Perpetrators by Relationship to Their Victims, 2022

State Other Other Professional Relative

Unmarried Partner of

Parent U n k n o w n Total Perpetrators

Alabama 604 16 712 288 148 8,162

Alaska 39 - 96 63 17 1,964

Arizona - - - - - -

Arkansas 694 34 824 273 232 7,635

California 2 - 2,078 2,803 - 45,289

Colorado 328 1 717 4 740 8,080

Connecticut 217 46 146 201 - 4,090

Delaware 67 - 116 51 - 829

District of Columbia 12 - 23 - - 1,016

Florida 660 141 837 895 1,587 18,647

Georgia 515 22 471 177 - 7,897

Hawaii 47 - 33 - 5 1,144

Idaho 1 - 50 49 9 1,702

Illinois 459 64 1,379 917 260 23,359

Indiana 831 16 821 - 547 15,302

Iowa 272 - 445 525 7 8,003

Kansas 214 - 222 - 24 1,551

Kentucky 76 - 597 528 102 9,399

Louisiana

- - - - - -

Maine - - - - - -

Maryland 631 - 628 - 1,346 5,967

Massachusetts 457 62 653 771 414 17,811

Michigan 215 2 930 893 3 18,417

Minnesota 85 1 334 234 16 3,768

Mississippi 208 21 874 307 335 7,611

Missouri 457 21 354 286 159 3,625

Montana 21 - 64 77 - 1,870

Nebraska 60 - 55 51 19 1,338

Nevada 1 - 155 249 9 4,643

New Hampshire - - 30 16 45 913

New Jersey 54 44 175 142 23 2,434

New Mexico 41 - 183 197 52 4,668

New York 551 - 2,393 2,324 33 38,597

North Carolina - - - - - -

North Dakota - - 20 - 70 852

Ohio 2,291 96 2,142 - 1,011 18,424

Oklahoma 724 6 505 44 82 11,332

Oregon

- 357 136 1,510 7,969

Pennsylvania 529 100 910 379 77 5,040

Puerto Rico 15 10 100 1 349 3,472

Rhode Island 78 - 34 81 1 1,948

South Carolina 337 - 382 305 1 10,930

South Dakota 17 - 28 44 18 1,028

Tennessee 1,459 5 1,001 66 3 6,828

Texas 1,076 194 5,017 3,040 121 42,240

Utah 548 11 720 257 63 6,387

Vermont 64 1 50 33 15 556

Virginia 232 56 324 117 112 3,882

Washington 37 - 96 206 1 2,986

West Virginia 313 4 296 22 199 4,821

Wisconsin 263 11 311 273 297 3,325

Wyoming 27 1 30 1 - 613

National Total 15,829 986 28,718 17,326 10,062 408,364

National Percent 3.9 0.2 7.0 4.2 2.5 100.0

Reporting States 45 26 48 41 41 48

chApter 6: Services 76

Child Maltreatment 2022

Services

The mandate of child protection is not only to investigate or assess maltreatment allegations,

but also to provide services. CPS agencies promote children’s safety and well-being with a

broad range of prevention activities and by providing services to children who were maltreated

or are at-risk of maltreatment. CPS agencies may use several options for providing services:

agency staff may provide services directly to children and their families, the agency may hire a

service provider, or CPS may work with other agencies (e.g., public health agencies).

NCANDS collects data for 26 types of services including adoption, employment, mental

health, and substance abuse. States have their own typologies of services, which they map or

crosswalk to the NCANDS services categories. In this chapter, services are examined from two

perspectives:

(1) Prevention services–consists of aggregated data from states about the use of various

funding streams for prevention services, which are provided to parents whose children

are at risk of abuse and neglect. These services are designed to improve child-rearing

competencies of the parents and other caregivers via education on the developmental

stages of childhood and the provision of other types of assistance.

(2)

Postresponse services–consists of case-level data about children who receive services

as a result of an investigation response or alternative response. Postresponse services

address the safety of the child and usually are based on an assessment of the family’s

situation, including service needs and family strengths.

Prevention Services (duplicate count of children)

States and local agencies determine who will receive prevention services, which services will

be offered, and how the services will be provided. Prevention services may be funded by the

state or the following federal programs:

■ Section 106 of Title I of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA), as

amended [P.L. 100–294] (State Grant): Under this program, states perform a range

of prevention activities, including addressing the needs of infants born with prenatal

drug exposure, referring children not at risk of imminent harm to community services,

implementing criminal record checks for prospective foster and adoptive parents and

other adults in their homes, training child protective services workers, protecting the legal

rights of families and alleged perpetrators, and supporting citizen review panels. CAPTA

requires states to convene multidisciplinary teams to review the circumstances of child

fatalities in the state and make recommendations.

■ Title II of CAPTA, as amended [P.L. 100–294]: The Community-Based Child Abuse

Prevention Grants (CBCAP) provides funding to a lead state agency (designated by the

governor) to support community-based efforts to develop, operate, expand, enhance, and

CHAPTER 6

Child Maltreatment 2022

chApter 6: Services 77

coordinate initiatives, programs, and activities to prevent child abuse and neglect and sup-

port the coordination of resources and activities; and to foster understanding, appreciation

and knowledge of diverse populations in order to effectively prevent and treat child abuse

and neglect.

■ Title IV–B, Subpart 2, as amended [P.L. 107–133] Promoting Safe and Stable Families:

The primary goals of Promoting Safe and Stable Families (PSSF) are to prevent the

unnecessary separation of children from their families, improve the quality of care and

services to children and their families, and ensure permanency for children by reuniting

them with their parents, by adoption, or by another permanent living arrangement. States

are to spend most of the funding for services that address family support, family preserva-

tion, time-limited family reunication, and adoption promotion and support. The services

are designed to help state child welfare agencies and eligible Indian tribes establish and

operate integrated, preventive family preservation services and community-based family

support services for families at risk or in crisis.

■ Title IV–E of the Social Security Act as amended [P.L.115–123] Family First Prevention

Services Act (FFPSA): This act authorized new optional title IV–E funding for time-lim-

ited prevention services for mental health, substance abuse, and in-home parent skill-based

programs for children or youth who are candidates for foster care, pregnant or parenting

youth in foster care, and the parents or kin caregivers of those children and youth. States

do not report these services to NCANDS.

■ Title XX of the Social Security Act, [P.L. 93–647], Social Services Block Grant (SSBG):

This grant is a exible funding source that allows states and territories to tailor social ser-

vice programming to their population’s needs. Through the SSBG, states provide essential

social services that help achieve goals to reduce dependency and promote self-sufciency;

protect children and adults from neglect, abuse and exploitation; and help individuals who

are unable to take care of themselves to stay in their homes or to nd the best institutional

arrangements.

For each funding source, states are asked to provide to NCANDS a count of child recipients.

Some states are not able to report all child recipients and may report a count of family

recipients either instead of or in combination with a count of child recipients. A calculation is

performed on the count of family recipients to derive a child count.

The estimated total child recipient count by funding source is a sum of the reported child

count and the calculated child count. The calculated child count is computed by multiplying

the family count by the average number of children in a family. States are asked to provide

unique and mutually exclusive counts (e.g., if reporting a child in the child count, the child is

not also included in the family count) within each source. However, because a child or family

may receive multiple services, there may be duplication across funding sources.

Based on data from 45 states, the FFY 2022 estimated total child recipients of prevention

services is 1,922,792. See table 6–1 and related notes. This is an increase from the FFY

2021 estimated total child recipients of 1,761,128, based on data from 45 states. For 2022, the

average number of own children under 18 in families is 1.94.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey. (2022). Annual Social and Economic Supplement AVG3.

Average Number of People per Family Household with Own Children Under 18, by Race and Hispanic Origin,

Marital Status, Age, and Education of Householder: 2022 [data le]. Retrieved March 2023 from

https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2022/demo/families/cps-2022.html

Child Maltreatment 2022

chApter 6: Services 78

The funding source with the largest number of estimated total child recipients is Community-

Based Child Abuse Prevention Grants (CBCAP) with 38 states reporting 561,247 estimated

recipients. The Promoting Safe and Stable Families (PSSF) source has 36 states reporting an

estimated total child recipients of 483,862.

Due to the nature of these funds and the ways

states use them, the number of recipients uctuates from one year to the next. Information

about state increases and decreases in recipients and funding may be found in Appendix D,

State Commentary. States continue to work on improving the ability to measure prevention

services. Some of the difculties with collecting and reporting these elements are listed below:

■ CPS agencies may contract out some or all prevention services to local community-based

agencies, and they may not report on the number of clients they serve.

■ CPS agencies may have difculty collecting data from all funders or all funded agencies.

■ The prevention program may be on a different scal schedule (e.g., state scal year) and it

may be difcult to provide accurate data on an FFY schedule.

Postresponse Services (duplicate count of children)

All children and families who are involved with a child welfare agency receive services to some

degree. NCANDS and the Child Maltreatment report focus on only those services that were

initiated or continued as a result of the investigation response or alternative response. NCANDS

collects data for 26 services categories, states have their own service categories which they

crosswalk (map) to the NCANDS categories. Not every state reports data for every service.

Readers should see Appendix B, Glossary, for denitions of service categories and Appendix

D, State Commentary, for state-specic information on services reporting.

States continue to

work on improving the ability to report postresponse services data. Some states say they are

only able to report on those services that the CPS agency provides and are not able to report on

those services provided by an external agency or vendors.

The analyses include those services that were provided between the report date (date the mal-

treatment report is received) and up to 90 days after the disposition date (date of determination

about whether the maltreatment occurred). For services that began prior to the report date, if

they continue past the report disposition date, this would imply that the investigation or alterna-

tive response reafrmed the need and continuation of the services, and they should be reported

to NCANDS as postresponse services. Services that do not meet the denition of postresponse

services are those that (1) began prior to the report date but did not continue past the disposition

date or (2) began more than 90 days after the disposition date.

During FFY 2022, 897,486 children received postresponse services from a CPS agency. Fifty-

one states reported 55.0 percent of duplicate victims received postresponse services and 20.3

percent of duplicate nonvictims received postresponse services. See table 6–2 and related notes.

This is a decrease from FFY 2021 when 50 states reported 1,051,818 children who received

postresponse services. Comments provided by states attribute changes in FFY 2022 data when

compared with 2021 are due to improved reporting. One state was previously reporting services

that did not continue past the disposition date.

Children who received postresponse services

are counted per response by CPS and may be counted more than once. States provide data on

the start of postresponse services.

P.L. 116–94 Family First Transition Act of 2020 renamed this program to Marylee Allen Promoting Safe and Stable

Families.

For a listing of all 26 services categories and denitions, please see the NCANDS Child File Code Book on the Children’s

Bureau website at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb/training-technical-assistance/ncands-child-le-codebook

California

Child Maltreatment 2022

chApter 6: Services 79

Table 6–3 calculates the national average by dividing the total number of days to services by

the number of children who received services on or after the report date (mean). Based on data

from 45 states, the average number of days from receipt of a report to initiation of services for

FFY 2022 is 40 days and a midpoint (median) of 22 days. See table 6–3 and related notes. This

is a increase from FFY 2021 when 44 states reported an average of 29 days and a median of

18 days. Several states provided comments about the increase in days to services receipt and

attributed the increase to: only counting the children with services during the reporting period,

improved data entry, a new Comprehensive Child Welfare System (CCWIS), new service

interface, and the addition of three services to the service array.

Table 6–4 displays the number of children who received foster care services and are

removed from home. Only the children who are removed from their home on or after the

report date are counted. This is because some children were already in foster care when

the allegation of maltreatment was made, and readers and researchers want to know

the number of children who were removed as a result of the investigation or alternative

response. Readers interested in more complete adoption and foster care statistics should

refer to the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS) data at

https://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb/data-research/adoption-fostercare. AFCARS collects case-level

information on all children in foster care and those who are adopted with title IV–E agency

involvement.

Based on FFY 2022 data from 49 states, 104,747 victims (19.6%) and 40,702 nonvictims

(1.4%) were removed from their homes. For FFY 2021, 48 states reported 113,324 victims

(20.2%) and 43,252 nonvictims (1.6%) were removed. Some states report low percentages

of victims and nonvictims who received foster care services due to system limitations or

other difculties with collecting and reporting the data as mentioned above. See table 6–4

and related notes. There may be several explanations as to why nonvictims are placed in

foster care. For example, if one child in a household is deemed to be in danger or at-risk of

maltreatment, the state may remove all of the children in the household to ensure their safety.

(E.g., if a CPS worker nds a drug lab in a house or nds a severely intoxicated caregiver, the

worker may remove all children, even if there is only a maltreatment allegation for one child

in the household.) Another reason for a nonvictim to be removed has to do with voluntary

placements. This is when a parent voluntarily agrees to place a child in foster care even if the

child was not determined to be a victim of maltreatment.

Twenty-ve states reported 51,193 victims (19.0%) have court-appointed representatives.

See table 6–5 and related notes. This is a decrease from FFY 2021 when 25 states reported

52,222 victims (19.7%) had court-appointed representatives. The representatives act on

behalf of a child in court proceedings and make recommendations to the court in the best

interests of the child. According to states, Guardians ad Litem, children’s attorneys, and

Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASAs) are included in these counts to NCANDS.

These numbers are likely to be an undercount given the statutory requirement in CAPTA that

says, “in every case involving a victim of child abuse or neglect which results in a judicial

proceeding, a guardian ad litem who has received training appropriate to the role, including

training in early childhood, child and adolescent development, and who may be an attorney

Child Maltreatment 2022

chApter 6: Services 80

or a court-appointed special advocate who has received training appropriate to that role (or

both), shall be appointed to represent the child in such proceedings…” States provide the

following possible reasons for not reporting data:

■ The data is provided by contracted vendors and is not available at the child level.

■ The lack of a centralized database.

■ The court system is not able to interface with the child welfare system.

■ The court system does not record information at the child level.

The NCANDS Technical Team is continuing to work with states on improving reporting in this

area.

History of Receiving Services (unique count of victims)

Two data elements in the Agency File collect information on histories of victims with prior

CPS involvement. For FFY 2022, 28 states reported 49,703 victims (15.2%) received fam-

ily preservation services within the previous 5 years. This is an increase from FFY 2021

when 29 states reported 45,440 victims (14.0%) received family preservation services.

See table 6–6 and related notes. Several states subcontract family preservation services to

outside vendors and are not able to report this data to NCANDS. FFY 2022 data from 37

states show 18,327 victims (4.8%) were reunited with their families within the previous

5 years. This is similar to FFY 2021 when 38 states reported 19,588 victims (4.8%) were

reunited. See table 6–7 and related notes.

Part C of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)

(unique count of victims)

Federal guidance asks for states to report the number of victims who are younger than 3 years

who are eligible for and referred to agencies providing early intervention services under Part

C of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. However, some states have policies in

place to allow older children to be considered eligible for referral and receipt of these services

and these states may report victims who are older than 3 years. NCANDS uses the following

denitions:

■ Number of Children Eligible for Referral to Agencies Providing Early Intervention

Services Under Part C of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: a unique count

of the number of victims eligible for referral to agencies providing early intervention

services under Part C of the Individuals with Disabilities Act.

■ Number of Children Referred to Agencies Providing Early Intervention Services Under

Part C of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: a unique count of the number of

victims actually referred to agencies providing early intervention services under Part C of

the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

Thirty-eight states reported 88,725 victims who are eligible for referral to agencies providing

early intervention services and 32 states reported 37,588 victims who are referred. Of the states

that are able to report both the victims who are eligible and referred (31 states), 57.9 percent of

victims who are eligible are referred to the agencies. See table 6–8 and related notes.

Exhibit and Table Notes

The following pages contain the data tables referenced in chapter 6. Specic information

about state submissions can be found in Appendix D, State Commentary. Additional infor-

mation regarding the exhibits and tables is provided below.

Child Maltreatment 2022

chApter 6: Services 81

General

During data analyses, thresholds are set to ensure data quality is balanced with the need to

report data from as many states as possible. States may be excluded from an analysis for data

quality issues. Exclusion rules are listed in the table notes below. Not every table has exclu-

sion rules or notes.

■ The data for all tables are from the Child File unless otherwise noted.

■ Due to the large number of categories, most services are defined in Appendix B, Glossary.

■ The row labeled Reporting States displays the count of states that provide data for that

analysis.

■ The Child File Codebook, which includes the services fields, is located on the Children’s

Bureau website at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb/training-technical-assistance/ncands-child-

file-codebook.

■ National totals and calculations appear in a single row labeled National instead of separate

rows labeled total, rate, or percent.

■ Dashes are inserted into cells without any data for this analysis.

Table 6–1 Children Who Received Prevention Services by

Funding Source, 2022

■ Data is from the Agency File.

■ The number of total recipients is a duplicate count.

■ Children may be counted more than once, under a single funding source and across fund-

ing sources.

■ Children who received prevention services may have received them via CPS or other

agencies.

■ Funds used for public service announcements or campaigns are not included in NCANDS

reporting.

■ Some programs maintain their data as counts of families rather than counts of children. If a

family count was provided, the number of families was multiplied by the average number of

children per family (1.94) and used as the estimate of the number of children who received

services or added to any counts of children that were also provided. The estimated total child

recipient count by funding source is a sum of the reported child count and the calculated

child count.

Table 6–2 Children Who Received Postresponse Services, 2022

■ The numbers of victims and nonvictims are duplicate counts.

■ A child is counted each time that a CPS response is completed and services are provided.

■ This analysis includes only those services that continue past or are initiated after the

completion of the CPS response.

■ States are excluded from this analysis if they report fewer than 1.0 percent of victims or

fewer than 1.0 percent of nonvictims with postresponse services.

■ A couple of states reported that 100.0 percent of its victims, nonvictims, or both received

services. These states may be reporting case management services and information and

referral services for all children who received a CPS response.

Table 6–3 Average and Median Number of Days to Initiation of Services, 2022

■ The number of children is a duplicate count.

■ This analysis uses subset of children whose service date is the same day or later than the report

date. The subset is created by excluding any report with a service date prior to the report date.

■ The average is displayed at the state and national level. The state average is rounded to

a whole day. The national average is calculated by dividing the total number of days to

chApter 6: Services 82

Child Maltreatment 2022

services by the number of children who received services on or after the report date. The

total number of days to the initiation of services is not shown.

■ The median is displayed for both the national and the state level. The median is determined

by nding the midpoint of the number of days to services for children who received ser-

vices on or after the report date.

■ States are excluded from this analysis if they report fewer than 1.0 percent of victims or

fewer than 1.0 percent of nonvictims with postresponse services.

■ States are excluded from this analysis if fewer than 80.0 percent of records with a service

have a service date.

■ States are excluded from this analysis if fewer than 40.0 percent of records with a service

have a service date after the report date.

■ States are excluded from this analysis if more than 40.0 percent of records have the same

report date and service date.

Table 6–4 Children Who Received Foster Care Postresponse Services and

Who Had a Removal Date on or After the Report Date, 2022

■ The numbers of victims and nonvictims are a duplicate count.

■ A child is counted each time that a CPS response is completed and services are provided.

■ Only the children who are removed from their home on or after the report and up to 90

days after the disposition date are counted.

■ States are excluded from this analysis if fewer than 1.0 percent of victims received foster

care services.

■ States were excluded from this analysis if more than 25.0 percent of victims with foster care

services or more than 70.0 percent of nonvictims with foster care services did not have a

removal date.

Table 6–5 Victims with Court-Appointed Representatives, 2022

■ The number of victims is a duplicate count.

■ The NCANDS category of court-appointed representatives includes attorneys and court-

appointed special advocates who represent the interests of the child in a maltreatment

hearing.

■ States are excluded from this analysis if fewer than 5.0 percent of victims have a court-

appointed representative.

Table 6–6 Victims Who Received Family Preservation Services within the

Previous 5 Years, 2022

■ Data is from the Child File and Agency File.

■ The number of victims is a unique count.

Table 6–7 Victims Who Were Reunited with Their Families within the

Previous 5 Years, 2022

■ Data is from the Child File and the Agency File.

■ The number of victims is a unique count.

Table 6–8 IDEA: Victims Who Were Eligible and Victims Who Were

Referred to Part C Agencies, 2022

■ Data is from the Agency File.

■ The number of victims is a unique count.

chApter 6: Services 83

Child Maltreatment 2022

Table 6–1 Children Who Received Prevention Services by Funding Source, 2022

(continues next page)

State

Child Abuse and

Neglect State

Grant (State Grant)

Children

State Grant

Calculated Child

Count

State Grant

Estimated Total

Child Recipients

Community-Based

Child Abuse

Prevention Grants

(CBCAP) Children

CBCAP Calculated

Child Count

CBCAP Estimated

Total Child

Recipients

Alabama - 1,197 1,197 1,634 - 1,634

Alaska - - - 354 - 354

Arizona - - - - 5,449 5,449

Arkansas 19 175 194 - 1,752 1,752

California - 1,383 1,383 1,933 4,988 6,921

Colorado - - - - - -

Connecticut 37,202 - 37,202 - 378 378

Delaware - - - - - -

District of Columbia 54 - 54 - - -

Florida - - - - - -

Georgia 13,176 44,240 57,416 6,963 21,759 28,722

Hawaii - - - - 1,502 1,502

Idaho - - - 5,143 8,239 13,382

Illinois 2,632 4,437 7,069 5,252 7,964 13,216

Indiana 23,588 - 23,588 3,642 - 3,642

Iowa - 142 142 - 1,410 1,410

Kansas -

- - - - -

Kentucky - - - 1,160 - 1,160

Louisiana

- - - 18,636 30,285 48,921

Maine - - - - - -

Maryland - - - - - -

Massachusetts - - - - - -

Michigan 2,225 5,958 8,183 177,575 32,012 209,587

Minnesota 3,812 - 3,812 8,278 - 8,278

Mississippi - - - 3,147 8,270 11,417

Missouri - - - 648 - 648

Montana - - - 959 1,020 1,979

Nebraska - - - 3,143 - 3,143

Nevada 42 - 42 1,785 - 1,785

New Hampshire - - - 2,730 - 2,730

New Jersey - 1,868 1,868 62,679 47,827 110,506

New Mexico - - - 131 - 131

New York - - - 2,278 4,456 6,734

North Carolina - - - 229 275 504

North Dakota - - - 217 2,089 2,306

Ohio - -

- 1,284 1,385 2,669

Oklahoma - - - - 871 871

Oregon -

- - - - -

Pennsylvania - - - 4,078 - 4,078

Puerto Rico 5,224 44,216 49,440 994 4,928 5,922

Rhode Island - - - - - -

South Carolina - - - - - -

South Dakota - - - 1,165 918 2,083

Tennessee - - - - - -

Texas - - - 887 1,989 2,876

Utah - - - 11,558 - 11,558

Vermont - - - - - -

Virginia 54,900 - 54,900 1,179 5,461 6,640

Washington 4,354 - 4,354 - 2,031 2,031

West Virginia 7,558 11,112 18,670 22,830 - 22,830

Wisconsin - - - - - -

Wyoming - - - 3,500 7,997 11,497

National 154,786 114,728 269,514 355,991 205,256 561,247

Reporting States 13 10 17 31 25 38

Child Maltreatment 2022

chApter 6: Services 84

Table 6–1 Children Who Received Prevention Services by Funding Source, 2022

(continues next page)

State

Promoting Safe

and Stable Families

(PSSF) Children

PSSF Calculated

Child Count

PSSF Estimated

Total Child

Recipients

Social Services

Block Grant (SSBG)

Children

SSBG Calculated

Child Count

SSBG Estimated

Total Child

Recipients

Alabama - 35,479 35,479 13,768 - 13,768

Alaska 243 163 406 125 4,210 4,335

Arizona - 7,463 7,463 - - -

Arkansas 20 522 542 - 60,159 60,159

California 6,237 43,239 49,476 - - -

Colorado - - - - - -

Connecticut 48,383 - 48,383 - - -

Delaware 1,843 - 1,843 - 811 811

District of Columbia 149 - 149 - - -

Florida 32,453 - 32,453 - - -

Georgia 15,358 - 15,358 - - -

Hawaii - - - - - -

Idaho 809 - 809 109 - 109

Illinois - - - 4,894 7,979 12,873

Indiana 1,775 - 1,775 15 - 15

Iowa - 1,042 1,042 - - -

Kansas 1,757 - 1,757 -

- -

Kentucky 618 - 618 - - -

Louisiana

2,704 3,325 6,029 6,049 - 6,049

Maine - - - - - -

Maryland - - - 13,433 - 13,433

Massachusetts - - - - - -

Michigan 11,756 9,423 21,179 - - -

Minnesota 1,907 - 1,907 10,937 - 10,937

Mississippi 537 - 537 - - -

Missouri - - - - - -

Montana 2,310 3,603 5,913 - - -

Nebraska - 14,125 14,125 - - -

Nevada 7,174 - 7,174 24,109 - 24,109

New Hampshire 120 - 120 413 - 413

New Jersey - - - - - -

New Mexico 2,138 - 2,138 - - -

New York - - - - - -

North Carolina 2,015 3,116 5,131 1,040 2,018 3,058

North Dakota - 3,944 3,944 - - -

Ohio - - - 35,097 -

35,097

Oklahoma 140 386 526 - - -

Oregon -

1,808 1,808 - 3,449 3,449

Pennsylvania 3,919 - 3,919 147,277 - 147,277

Puerto Rico 1,398 3,251 4,649 1,098 3,641 4,739

Rhode Island - 2,797 2,797 - - -

South Carolina - - - - - -

South Dakota - - - - - -

Tennessee - - - - - -

Texas 18,403 31,422 49,825 - - -

Utah - - - - - -

Vermont - - - - - -

Virginia 18,016 31,445 49,461 - - -

Washington 5,244 19,759 25,003 - - -

West Virginia 27,846 48,651 76,497 31,537 19,790 51,327

Wisconsin - - - - - -

Wyoming 1,900 1,727 3,627 4,314 - 4,314

National 217,172 266,690 483,862 294,215 102,058 396,273

Reporting States 29 21 36 16 8 19

Child Maltreatment 2022

chApter 6: Services 85

Table 6–1 Children Who Received Prevention

Services by Funding Source, 2022

State

Other Funding

(Other) Children

Other Calculated

Child Count

Other Estimated

Total Child

Recipients

Estimated Total

Child Recipients

Alabama - - - 52,078

Alaska 137 83 220 5,315

Arizona - 6,866 6,866 19,778

Arkansas - - - 62,647

California 781 8,947 9,728 67,508

Colorado - - - -

Connecticut 2,378 58 2,436 88,400

Delaware 2,896 3,021 5,917 8,571

District of Columbia 1,139 - 1,139 1,342

Florida - - - 32,453

Georgia - - - 101,496

Hawaii - - - 1,502

Idaho 141 - 141 14,441

Illinois - - - 33,158

Indiana 8,914 - 8,914 37,934

Iowa - - - 2,594

Kansas 14 - 14 1,771

Kentucky 230 - 230 2,008

Louisiana 2,205 5,601 7,806 68,805

Maine - - - -

Maryland - - - 13,433

Massachusetts - - - -

Michigan - - - 238,948

Minnesota - - - 24,934

Mississippi 1,197 - 1,197

13,151

Missouri 1,147 - 1,147

1,795

Montana - - - 7,892

Nebraska - - - 17,268

Nevada 15,524 - 15,524 48,634

New Hampshire 1,247 - 1,247 4,510

New Jersey - 5,775 5,775 118,149

New Mexico 2,450 2,937 5,387 7,656

New York 73,940 - 73,940 80,674

North Carolina 3,255 5,948 9,203 17,896

North Dakota - - - 6,250

Ohio - - - 37,766

Oklahoma 3,987 8,804 12,791 14,188

Oregon - 332 332 5,589

Pennsylvania 5,862 - 5,862 161,136

Puerto Rico 789 3,851 4,640 69,391

Rhode Island - - - 2,797

South Carolina - - - -

South Dakota - - - 2,083

Tennessee - - - -

Texas - - - 52,701

Utah 7,708 - 7,708 19,266

Vermont - - - -

Virginia 4,977 8,191 13,168 124,169

Washington - - - 31,388

West Virginia 10,565 - 10,565 179,890

Wisconsin - - - -

Wyoming - -

- 19,437

National 151,483 60,414 211,897 1,922,792

Reporting States 23 13 26 45

Child Maltreatment 2022

chApter 6: Services 86

Table 6–2 Children Who Received Postresponse Services, 2022

State Victims

Victims Who

Received

Postresponse

Services

Victims Who

Received

Postresponse

Services Percent Nonvictims

Nonvictims

Who Received

Postresponse

Services

Nonvictims

Who Received

Postresponse

Services Percent

Alabama 11,941 6,818 57.1 27,629 4,541 16.4

Alaska 2,794 1,494 53.5 9,544 464 4.9

Arizona 13,540 4,620 34.1 51,631 1,015 2.0

Arkansas 9,363 7,781 83.1 55,740 8,084 14.5

California 53,973 34,789 64.5 295,721 61,414 20.8

Colorado 10,572 1,919 18.2 38,824 675 1.7

Connecticut 5,394 5,255 97.4 12,578 11,744 93.4

Delaware 1,104 440 39.9 12,514 1,589 12.7

District of Columbia 1,689 215 12.7 8,002 184 2.3

Florida 25,697 9,405 36.6 276,720 9,003 3.3

Georgia 10,820 8,263 76.4 113,262 66,232 58.5

Hawaii 1,342 784 58.4 4,521 581 12.9

Idaho 2,065 1,231 59.6 10,848 1,017 9.4

Illinois 37,077 17,096 46.1 171,695 27,633 16.1

Indiana 20,184 11,100 55.0 145,902 9,640 6.6

Iowa 13,150 13,150 100.0 43,055 43,055 100.0

Kansas 1,974 1,060

53.7 29,422 7,112 24.2

Kentucky 13,492 9,415 69.8 49,442 3,155 6.4

Louisiana

7,861 4,046 51.5 18,092 1,136 6.3

Maine 4,094 898 21.9 16,516 215 1.3

Maryland 7,080 1,344 19.0 18,567 1,126 6.1

Massachusetts 24,582 22,347 90.9 54,621 32,602 59.7

Michigan 24,916 9,659 38.8 150,151 17,941 11.9

Minnesota 5,521 3,333 60.4 32,587 8,161 25.0

Mississippi 9,797 4,489 45.8 35,338 2,634 7.5

Missouri 4,004 2,352 58.7 70,288 14,617 20.8

Montana 2,913 1,327 45.6 10,703 774 7.2

Nebraska 2,126 1,588 74.7 32,784 12,710 38.8

Nevada 6,273 3,047 48.6 30,095 5,309 17.6

New Hampshire 1,053 618 58.7 14,448 2,028 14.0

New Jersey 3,217 1,655 51.4 86,159 14,088 16.4

New Mexico 6,616 1,650 24.9 25,739 1,723 6.7

New York - - - - - -

North Carolina 24,803 16,665 67.2 106,363 21,133 19.9

North Dakota 1,154 705 61.1 4,035 482 11.9

Ohio 24,677 15,071 61.1

98,896 26,953 27.3

Oklahoma 14,240 12,280 86.2 44,436 30,944 69.6

Oregon 11,397

3,447 30.2 46,576 2,949 6.3

Pennsylvania 5,201 1,119 21.5 34,574 2,086 6.0

Puerto Rico 5,127 4,310 84.1 9,276 2,976 32.1

Rhode Island 2,601 1,023 39.3 4,410 539 12.2

South Carolina 15,680 5,210 33.2 67,233 8,293 12.3

South Dakota 1,546 718 46.4 2,933 222 7.6

Tennessee 7,024 7,024 100.0 95,990 89,337 93.1

Texas 55,942 19,595 35.0 267,740 8,124 3.0

Utah 9,253 7,907 85.5 22,223 14,371 64.7

Vermont 761 258 33.9 3,813 509 13.3

Virginia 4,694 1,270 27.1 45,451 2,222 4.9

Washington 3,995 2,109 52.8 56,945 3,800 6.7

West Virginia 5,740 5,555 96.8 44,399 5,461 12.3

Wisconsin 4,259 1,721 40.4 31,890 2,213 6.9

Wyoming 851 701 82.4 3,463 2,794 80.7

National 545,169 299,876 55.0 2,943,784 597,610 20.3

Reporting States 51 51 - 51 51 -

Child Maltreatment 2022

chApter 6: Services 87

Table 6–3 Average and Median Number of Days to Initiation of Services, 2022

State Children Who Received Services

Children Who Received Services

on or After the Report Date

Average Number of Days

to Initiation of Services

Median Number of Days

to Initiation of Services

Alabama 11,359 11,323 41 35

Alaska 1,958 1,958 46 34

Arizona 5,635 4,720 39 15

Arkansas 15,865 15,166 39 40

California 96,203 90,241 58 43

Colorado 2,594 2,356 22 14

Connecticut - - - -

Delaware 2,029 2,029 79 65

District of Columbia 399 391 49 35

Florida 18,408 12,497 31 14

Georgia 74,495 73,228 13 6

Hawaii 1,365 1,052 21 2

Idaho 2,248 2,246 27 20

Illinois 44,729 21,070 48 33

Indiana 20,740 20,691 31 19

Iowa 56,205 56,205 25 28

Kansas 8,172 5,172 51 32

Kentucky 12,570 10,838 78 65

Louisiana 5,182 4,885 44 27

Maine 1,113 916 29 10

Maryland - - - -

Massachusetts 54,949 37,230 14 14

Michigan 27,600 14,722 44 36

Minnesota 11,494 11,494 63 45

Mississippi 7,123 7,069

28 28

Missouri 16,969 14,877 55

Montana 2,101 1,663 48 30

Nebraska 14,298 6,279 56 36

Nevada 8,356 8,035 66 56

New Hampshire 2,646 2,221 60 47

New Jersey 15,743 10,508 50 43

New Mexico 3,373 2,673 31 15

New York - - - -

North Carolina - - - -

North Dakota 1,187 1,177 57 47

Ohio 42,024 33,420 42 34

Oklahoma 43,224 43,136 50 49

Oregon 6,396 4,997 56 27

Pennsylvania 3,205 2,377 29 29

Puerto Rico 7,286 5,859 84 28

Rhode Island 1,562 1,057 35 21

South Carolina 13,503 7,916 39 42

South Dakota - - - -

Tennessee - - - -

Texas 27,719 27,208 44 26

Utah - - - -

Vermont 767 479 44 17

Virginia 3,492 2,000 38 23

Washington 5,909 4,636 35 21

West Virginia 11,016 6,475 37 22

Wisconsin 3,934 3,934 51 56

Wyoming 3,495

3,467 13 6

National 720,640 601,893 40 22

Reporting States 45 45 45 45

Child Maltreatment 2022

chApter 6: Services 88

Table 6–4 Children Who Received Foster Care Postresponse Services and

Who had a Removal Date On or After the Report Date, 2022

State Victims

Victims Who

Received Foster Care

Postresponse Services

Victims Who

Received Foster Care

Postresponse Services

Percent Nonvictims

Nonvictims Who

Received Foster Care

Postresponse Services

Nonvictims Who

Received Foster Care

Postresponse Services

Percent

Alabama 11,941 2,002 16.8 27,629 661 2.4

Alaska 2,794 651 23.3 9,544 288 3.0

Arizona 13,540 2,363 17.5 51,631 191 0.4

Arkansas 9,363 1,478 15.8 55,740 885 1.6

California 53,973 18,144 33.6 295,721 5,426 1.8

Colorado 10,572 1,201 11.4 38,824 188 0.5

Connecticut 5,394 791 14.7 12,578 215 1.7

Delaware 1,104 188 17.0 12,514 62 0.5

District of Columbia 1,689 167 9.9 8,002 45 0.6

Florida 25,697 8,658 33.7 276,720 2,431 0.9

Georgia 10,820 2,468 22.8 113,262 1,503 1.3

Hawaii 1,342 563 42.0 4,521 79 1.7

Idaho 2,065 718 34.8 10,848 161 1.5

Illinois 37,077 5,653 15.2 171,695 1,972 1.1

Indiana 20,184 5,358 26.5 145,902 1,765 1.2

Iowa 13,150 1,551 11.8 43,055 71 0.2

Kansas 1,974 155 7.9 29,422

615 2.1

Kentucky 13,492 698 5.2 49,442 126 0.3

Louisiana

7,861 2,225 28.3 18,092 300 1.7

Maine 4,094 832 20.3 16,516 78 0.5

Maryland 7,080 624 8.8 18,567 130 0.7

Massachusetts 24,582 3,180 12.9 54,621 837 1.5

Michigan 24,916 2,760 11.1 150,151 956 0.6

Minnesota 5,521 1,526 27.6 32,587 1,666 5.1

Mississippi 9,797 1,235 12.6 35,338 309 0.9

Missouri 4,004 1,400 35.0 70,288 3,100 4.4

Montana 2,913 1,093 37.5 10,703 295 2.8

Nebraska 2,126 744 35.0 32,784 925 2.8

Nevada 6,273 2,101 33.5 30,095 634 2.1

New Hampshire 1,053 392 37.2 14,448 251 1.7

New Jersey 3,217 553 17.2 86,159 1,068 1.2

New Mexico 6,616 773 11.7 25,739 396 1.5

New York - - - - - -

North Carolina 24,803 3,109 12.5 106,363 388 0.4

North Dakota 1,154 319 27.6 4,035 105 2.6

Ohio 24,677 5,216 21.1 98,896 2,463

2.5

Oklahoma 14,240 2,919 20.5 44,436 41 0.1

Oregon 11,397

2,219 19.5 46,576 673 1.4

Pennsylvania - - - - - -

Puerto Rico 5,127 421 8.2 9,276 28 0.3

Rhode Island 2,601 502 19.3 4,410 79 1.8

South Carolina 15,680 2,106 13.4 67,233 681 1.0

South Dakota 1,546 677 43.8 2,933 176 6.0

Tennessee 7,024 1,429 20.3 95,990 3,721 3.9

Texas 55,942 7,351 13.1 267,740 744 0.3

Utah 9,253 921 10.0 22,223 30 0.1

Vermont 761 148 19.4 3,813 158 4.1

Virginia - - - - - -

Washington 3,995 1,409 35.3 56,945 1,322 2.3

West Virginia 5,740 1,871 32.6 44,399 617 1.4

Wisconsin 4,259 1,488 34.9 31,890 1,802 5.7

Wyoming 851 397 46.7 3,463 45 1.3

National 535,274 104,747 19.6 2,863,759 40,702 1.4

Reporting States 49 49 49 49 49 49

chApter 6: Services 89

Child Maltreatment 2022

Table 6–5 Victims with Court-Appointed Representatives, 2022

State Victims

Victims with Court-Appointed

Representatives

Victims with Court-Appointed

Representatives Percent

Alabama 11,941 806 6.7

Alaska 2,794 641 22.9

Arizona 13,540 1,327 9.8

Arkansas - - -

California 53,973 14,909 27.6

Colorado - - -

Connecticut - - -

Delaware 1,104 206 18.7

District of Columbia - - -

Florida - - -

Georgia 10,820 2,237 20.7

Hawaii 1,342 703 52.4

Idaho - - -

Illinois - - -

Indiana 20,184 4,087 20.2

Iowa 13,150 1,834 13.9

Kansas - - -

Kentucky 13,492 3,283 24.3

Louisiana - - -

Maine - - -

Maryland - - -

Massachusetts 24,582 4,290 17.5

Michigan - - -

Minnesota 5,521 1,134 20.5

Mississippi 9,797 850 8.7

Missouri - - -

Montana 2,913 527 18.1

Nebraska 2,126 824 38.8

Nevada 6,273 528 8.4

New Hampshire 1,053 526 50.0

New Jersey - - -

New Mexico 6,616 726 11.0

New York -

- -

North Carolina - - -

North Dakota - - -

Ohio 24,677 4,846 19.6

Oklahoma 14,240 1,028 7.2

Oregon 11,397 2,584 22.7

Pennsylvania - - -

Puerto Rico - - -

Rhode Island 2,601 537 20.6

South Carolina - - -

South Dakota - - -

Tennessee - - -

Texas - - -

Utah 9,253 1,471 15.9

Vermont 761 208 27.3

Virginia 4,694 1,081 23.0

Washington - - -

West Virginia - - -

Wisconsin - - -

Wyoming - - -

National 268,844 51,193 19.0

Reporting States 25 25 -

chApter 6: Services 90

Child Maltreatment 2022

Table 6–6 Victims Who Received Family Preservation

Services within the Previous 5 Years, 2022

State Victims

Victims Who Received Family

Preservation Services within the

Previous 5 Years

Victims Who Received Family

Preservation Services within the

Previous 5 Years Percent

Alabama 11,618 1,067 9.2

Alaska - - -

Arizona - - -

Arkansas 8,927 1,658 18.6

California 50,869 7,232 14.2

Colorado - - -

Connecticut - - -

Delaware - - -

District of Columbia 1,574 230 14.6

Florida 24,505 4,022 16.4

Georgia 10,524 1,596 15.2

Hawaii - - -

Idaho 2,005 1,008 50.3

Illinois 32,433 7,503 23.1

Indiana - - -

Iowa - - -

Kansas 1,861 435 23.4

Kentucky 12,340 1,217 9.9

Louisiana 7,572 1,433 18.9

Maine - - -

Maryland - - -

Massachusetts 22,075 7,682 34.8

Michigan - - -

Minnesota 5,299 1,812 34.2

Mississippi 9,028 55 0.6

Missouri 3,932 405 10.3

Montana - - -

Nebraska 2,026 291 14.4

Nevada 5,851 425 7.3

New Hampshire 1,034 124 12.0

New Jersey 3,146 228 7.2

New Mexico 5,817

409 7.0

New York -

- -

North Carolina - - -

North Dakota - - -

Ohio - - -

Oklahoma 13,546 488 3.6

Oregon 10,507 671 6.4

Pennsylvania - - -

Puerto Rico 4,320 895 20.7

Rhode Island 2,444 669 27.4

South Carolina - - -

South Dakota - - -

Tennessee 6,924 1,304 18.8

Texas 54,207 6,572 12.1

Utah 8,765 20 0.2

Vermont - - -

Virginia - - -

Washington 3,389 252 7.4

West Virginia - - -

Wisconsin - - -

Wyoming - - -

National 326,538 49,703 15.2

Reporting States 28 28 -

chApter 6: Services 91

Child Maltreatment 2022

Table 6–7 Victims Who Were Reunited with Their

Families within the Previous 5 Years, 2022

State Victims

Victims Who Were Reunited with

Their Families within the Previous

5 Years

Victims Who Were Reunited with

Their Families within the Previous 5

Years Percent

Alabama 11,618 253 2.2

Alaska 2,581 255 9.9

Arizona - - -

Arkansas 8,927 173 1.9

California - - -

Colorado 9,777 389 4.0

Connecticut 5,032 185 3.7

Delaware 1,077 11 1.0

District of Columbia - - -

Florida 24,505 1,930 7.9

Georgia 10,524 437 4.2

Hawaii 1,228 85 6.9

Idaho 2,005 130 6.5

Illinois 32,433 1,706 5.3

Indiana 19,185 1,397 7.3

Iowa - - -

Kansas 1,861 269 14.5

Kentucky 12,340 1,153 9.3

Louisiana 7,572 319 4.2

Maine - - -

Maryland 6,564 227 3.5

Massachusetts 22,075 1,701 7.7

Michigan - - -

Minnesota 5,299 415 7.8

Mississippi 9,028 25 0.3

Missouri 3,932 171 4.3

Montana - - -

Nebraska 2,026 173 8.5

Nevada 5,851 497 8.5

New Hampshire 1,034 69 6.7

New Jersey 3,146 162 5.1

New Mexico 5,817

331 5.7

New York -

- -

North Carolina 23,134 442 1.9

North Dakota - - -

Ohio 22,439 1,188 5.3

Oklahoma 13,546 597 4.4

Oregon 10,507 998 9.5

Pennsylvania - - -

Puerto Rico 4,320 21 0.5

Rhode Island 2,444 165 6.8

South Carolina 14,572 194 1.3

South Dakota - - -

Tennessee 6,924 254 3.7

Texas 54,207 1,043 1.9

Utah 8,765 285 3.3

Vermont - - -

Virginia - - -

Washington 3,389 367 10.8

West Virginia - - -

Wisconsin 4,082 310 7.6

Wyoming - - -

National 383,766 18,327 4.8

Reporting States 37 37 -

chApter 6: Services 92

Child Maltreatment 2022

Table 6–8 IDEA: Victims Who Were Eligible and Victims Who

Were Referred to Part C Agencies, 2022

State

Victims Who Were Eligible for

Referral to Part C Agencies

Victims Who Were Referred to

Part C Agencies

Victims Who Were Referred to

Part C Agencies Percent

Alabama 3,383 515 15.2

Alaska 671 671 100.0

Arizona 775 64 8.3

Arkansas 2,725 - -

California 14,485 1,654 11.4

Colorado 2,378 1,661 69.8

Connecticut 1,266 625 49.4

Delaware - - -

District of Columbia 404 5 1.2

Florida - - -

Georgia 7,211 6,789 94.1

Hawaii - - -

Idaho 672 542 80.7

Illinois - - -

Indiana - - -

Iowa 3,422 3,422 100.0

Kansas 183 140 76.5

Kentucky 3,409 - -

Louisiana 3,378 3,111 92.1

Maine 892 892 100.0

Maryland - - -

Massachusetts 4,871 - -

Michigan - - -

Minnesota 1,631 1,575 96.6

Mississippi 566 319 56.4

Missouri 732 148 20.2

Montana - - -

Nebraska 509 509 100.0

Nevada 651 621 95.4

New Hampshire 290 - -

New Jersey 672 566 84.2

New Mexico

1,256 884 70.4

New York 10,583

- -

North Carolina - 805 -

North Dakota 374 360 96.3

Ohio 4,222 4,222 100.0

Oklahoma 3,897 789 20.2

Oregon 2,370 - -

Pennsylvania - - -

Puerto Rico 617 101 16.4

Rhode Island 624 616 98.7

South Carolina 4,034 2,804 69.5

South Dakota 505 410 81.2

Tennessee - - -

Texas - - -

Utah 1,562 1,562 100.0

Vermont - - -

Virginia - - -

Washington 849 200 23.6

West Virginia 1,500 789 52.6

Wisconsin 939 - -

Wyoming 217 217 100.0

National 88,725 37,588 42.4

Reporting States 38 32 31

National for States

Reporting Both Victims

Eligible and Referred

63,538 36,783 57.9

Reporting States for

States Reporting Both

Victims Eligible and Referred

31 31 -

Child Maltreatment 2022

chApter 7: Special Focus 93

The purpose of this chapter is to highlight analyses of specic subsets of children or data

analyses focusing on a specic topic. The analyses in this chapter include both new analyses

not presented in the previous chapters as well as existing analyses. The information is presented

together in this chapter to allow readers to see the complete analytical picture of the topic.

Introduction

Each state denes child abuse and neglect in its own statutes and policies and the child

welfare agencies determine the appropriate response for the alleged maltreatment based

on those statutes and policies. The purpose of the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data

System (NCANDS) project is to collect nationally standardized aggregate and case-level child

maltreatment data. This means that states must crosswalk or map their state categories to the

broader NCANDS categories and states may have multiple state categories that map to a single

NCANDS category. Although states are routinely asked to provide updated mapping as their

policies and procedures change, because NCANDS is a voluntary system and there is not a

requirement to update mapping forms.

The analyses in this chapter review the different dimensions of maltreatment type data to deter-

mine if there are any patterns within the data that may assist with targeting specic programs

or policies to aid the victims and their families. To fully consider the different dimensions,

some analyses use a duplicate count of victims, maltreatment types, or perpetrators which is

dened as:

■ Duplicate count: Counting each occurrence. For example, a duplicate count of maltreat-

ment types may count every substantiated maltreatment type every time it is reported.

NCANDS uses the following maltreatment type denitions (see Appendix B, Glossary for

these and additional denitions):

■ Medical neglect: A type of maltreatment caused by a failure of the caregiver to provide

appropriate health care of the child although nancially able to do so or offered nancial

or other resources to do so.

■ Neglect or deprivation of necessities: A type of maltreatment that refers to the failure by

the caregiver to provide needed, age-appropriate care although nancially able to do so or

offered nancial or other means to do so.

■ Physical abuse: Type of maltreatment that refers to physical acts that caused or could have

caused physical injury to a child.

■ Psychological or emotional maltreatment: Acts or omissions—other than physical abuse or

sexual abuse—that caused or could have caused—conduct, cognitive, affective, or other

behavioral or mental disorders. Frequently occurs as verbal abuse or excessive demands on

a child’s performance.

CHAPTER 7

Special Focus

Child Maltreatment 2022

chApter 7: Special Focus 94

■ Sexual abuse: A type of maltreatment that refers to the involvement of the child in sexual

activity to provide sexual gratication or nancial benet to the perpetrator, including

contacts for sexual purposes, molestation, statutory rape, prostitution, pornography,

exposure, incest, or other sexually exploitative activities.

■ Sex trafcking: A type of maltreatment that refers to the recruitment, harboring, transporta-

tion, provision, or obtaining of a person for the purpose of a commercial sex act. States have

the option to report to NCANDS any sex trafcking victim who is younger than 24 years.

■ Other: The state coding for this maltreatment type is not one of the codes in the NCANDS

record layout. According to some states’ policies and legislation, state categories of “other”

include threatened harm, threatened abuse, and threat of family violence.

Maltreatment Type Substantiations (unique count of victims)

Unfortunately, a child may be a victim of abuse and neglect more than once within a federal

scal year (FFY). Depending on state policy and procedure:

■ Some states may open a new report and conduct a new investigation or assessment of the

same incident if an allegation is received from more than one report source.

■ Some states may consolidate multiple allegations of the same incident into a single investi-

gation or assessment.

This analysis counts how many substantiations of each selected maltreatment type the victim

experienced within FFY 2022. A child is counted each time the child is determined to be

a victim of the selected maltreatment type either alone or in a combination with additional

maltreatment type(s).

Nationally, most victims are reported with a specic maltreatment type once within FFY 2022.

Victims of neglect have the most multiple substantiations with 93.2 percent of neglect victims

having a single neglect substantiation, 6.0 percent having two substantiations and fewer than

1.0 percent of victims having three substantiations. Victims of sexual abuse have the fewest

number of multiple substantiations with 97.9 percent having one sexual abuse substantiation

and 2.0 percent having two substations. See table 7–1 and related notes.

Maltreatment Type Combinations of Victims (duplicate count of victims)

Polyvictimization in child welfare refers to victims who have two or more types of maltreat-

ment. A child may be reported to NCANDS with up to four maltreatment types in each record

and a victim may have one or up to all four of those maltreatment types substantiated. The

purpose of this analysis is to display the most prevalent substantiated maltreatment type combi-

nations. Combinations are at the record level to show the result of the investigation for example:

■ If a victim has two substantiated reports, one of neglect and one of physical abuse, the

victim is counted once in neglect only and once in physical abuse only.

■ If a victim has one report with both substantiated neglect and substantiated physical abuse,

the victim is counted once in the neglect and physical abuse combination.

■ If a victim has two substantiated reports of neglect, the victim is counted twice in neglect

only.

The FFY 2022 data shows 88.6 percent of victims experience one type of substantiated mal-

treatment, although as discussed above, they could have any one type of substantiated mal-

treatment multiple times. More than three-fths of all victims are neglected only. Reviewing

state mapping for neglect reveals that the most common state categories that are mapped to

Child Maltreatment 2022

chApter 7: Special Focus 95

the NCANDS category of neglect include a state neglect category, abandonment, inadequate

supervision, and infants with prenatal substance exposure. Approximately 10 percent of victims

are physically abused only and 8.1 percent are sexually abused only.

The most common maltreatment type

combination is neglect and physical

abuse (4.2%). Neglect and psychological

maltreatment (1.7%) and neglect and

sexual abuse (1.3%) are the other

common combinations. Fewer than 1.0

percent of all victims experience three

types of substantiated maltreatment.

See table 7–2, exhibit 7–A, and related

notes.

Maltreatment Types and Report

Sources of Victims

(duplicate count of victims and duplicate

count of report sources)

The report source is the role of the

person who notied a CPS agency of

the alleged child abuse or neglect in a

referral. Only those sources in reports

(screened-in referrals) that receive an

investigation response or alternative

response are submitted to NCANDS.

See Chapter 2, Reports, and Appendix B, Glossary, for more information and denitions of

report sources. This table analyzes the substantiated maltreatment types of victims reported by

report source. This is different from Exhibit 2–E, Report Sources, in chapter 2 because:

■ Exhibit 2–E counts screened-in referrals (reports) while table 7–3 counts all substantiated

maltreatment types in a report.

■ Exhibit 2–E analyzes all report sources regardless of whether the report is substantiated,

unsubstantiated, etc., while table 7–3 only analyzes the report sources of victims.

For all report sources, neglect is the most common maltreatment type. Percentages range from

51.0 percent from mental health personnel to 71.7 from unclassied. For most report sources,

physical abuse is the second highest reported maltreatment type with percentages ranging

from 11.3 percent from unclassied to 30.4 percent for child daycare providers. There are two

exceptions; foster care providers and mental health personnel sources both report sexual abuse

as their second highest percentage at 18.0 and 23.7 percent, respectively.

This table also highlights the report sources that have more substantiations. As shown in exhibit

2–E, the two report sources with the highest and nearly identical percentages of referrals alleg-

ing maltreatment are education personnel (20.7%) and legal and law enforcement personnel

(21.2%.). Looking at the counts in table 7–3, legal and law enforcement personnel report more

than 2.5 times the number of substantiated maltreatment types than any other report source.

See table 7–3 and related notes.

Exhibit 7–A Children by Number of Maltreatment

Type Combinations, 2022

Fewer than 12 percent of victims have multiple

substantiated maltreatment types in the same record

Based on data from 52 states. See table 7–2.

The maltreatment type category called remaining combinations has fewer than 300 victims for each combination.

Child Maltreatment 2022

chApter 7: Special Focus 96

Maltreatment Types by Race and Ethnicity

(duplicate victims and duplicate maltreatment types)

Analyzing the maltreatment types of victims within race and ethnicity shows some differences

in the types of substantiated maltreatment. Within each race or ethnicity, most are victims of

neglect. Also, most races or ethnicities have physical abuse as the second highest percentage

of maltreatment. Black or African-American victims have the highest percentage of physical

abuse at 17.1 percent. The exceptions are American Indian or Alaska Native victims, which

have a high percentage (13.2%) of psychological maltreatment. Native Hawaiian or Other

Pacic Islander victims have some of the largest percentage (19.6%) of the “other” maltreatment

type.

Hispanic victims have similar percentages for sexual abuse 10.5 percent and physical

abuse 10.2 percent. See table 7–4, exhibit 7–B, and related notes.

Victims of Selected Maltreatment Types by Sex and Age

(unique count of victims and duplicate count of maltreatment types)

In this section the three most common maltreatment types–neglect, physical abuse, and

sexual abuse–are analyzed separately by the sex and single year age of victims. For these

analyses the victim could have the maltreatment type alone or in combination with additional

types of maltreatment.

There is variation in the use of the “other” maltreatment type among states. For example, Hawaii accounts for 87.8

percent of the Native Hawaiian or Other Pacic Islander victims with the “other” maltreatment type. According to

Hawaiian statutes, the state maltreatment types of threatened harm, threatened abuse, and threat of family violence are

mapped to the NCANDS category of “other” maltreatment type.

Exhibit 7–B Selected Maltreatment Types of Victims by Known Race or Ethnicity, 2022

Physical abuse is the second largest category for each race or ethnicity except Hispanic and American

Indian or Alaska Native

Based on data from 50 states. See table 7–4.

Child Maltreatment 2022

chApter 7: Special Focus 97

Victims of Neglect

Nationally, the victims of neglect are split relatively evenly between the sexes with 49.6

percent girls and 50.0 percent boys. Looking at the single year age reveals some differ-

ences between the sexes. There is a larger percentage of boys for all ages younger than

11 years ranging from <1 at 51.6 percent to 10 at 50.6 percent. Beginning at age 11, more

girls experience neglect ranging from 50.7 percent at age 11 years to 56.9 percent at age 17.

See table 7–5, exhibit 7–C, and related notes.

Victims of Physical Abuse

Nationally, there are slightly more boy victims of physical abuse at 51.5 percent than girl vic-

tims at 48.3 percent. Analyzing by single year age shows there is a larger percentage of boys for

all ages younger than 11 ranging from <1 at 53.5 percent to 53.2 percent at age 11. Beginning at

age 12, more girls are physically abused, ranging from 51.4 percent at age 12 to 60.2 percent at

age 17. See table 7–6, exhibit 7–D, and related notes.

Exhibit 7–C Victims of Neglect by Sex and Age, 2022

There are slightly more boys until age 11 when the percentage of girls becomes the majority

Based on data from 52 states. See table 7–5.

Child Maltreatment 2022

chApter 7: Special Focus 98

Victims of Psychological Maltreatment

Nationally, there are slightly more girl (52.7%) victims of psychological maltreatment than boy

(47.0%) victims. Analyzing by single-year age shows the percentage by sex uctuates until

age 10, when victims are predominately girls and steadily increase to 63.7 percent by age 17.

See table 7–7, exhibit 7–E, and related notes.

Exhibit 7–E Victims of Psychological Maltreatment by Sex and Age, 2022

Analyzing by single-year age shows the percentage by sex uctuates

until ages 10 through 17, when victims are predominately girls

Based on data from 47 states. See table 7–7.

Exhibit 7–D Victims of Physical Abuse by Sex and Age, 2022

There are slightly more boys until age 12 when the percentage of girls becomes the majority

Based on data from 52 states. See table 7–6.

Child Maltreatment 2022

chApter 7: Special Focus 99

Victims of Sexual Abuse

Nationally, most sexual abuse victims are girls, with boys comprising 16.3 percent. There is a

larger percentage of girl sexual abuse victims for all single year ages with the percentage of girl

victims steadily increasing each year. The percentages range from 55.3 percent for victims <1

to 87.4 percent for age 17. See table 7–8, exhibit 7–F, and related notes.

Maltreatment Types of Victims by Perpetrator Sex

(duplicate maltreatment types and duplicate perpetrators)

Each child in a report can have up to four different maltreatment types and up to three different

perpetrators. For this analysis, a victim is counted for each substantiated maltreatment and each

perpetrator. For example, if a victim has substantiated neglect by a female and male perpetrator,

the victim will be counted in the victim of neglect type once for the female perpetrator and

once for the male perpetrator. If a victim of neglect has two female perpetrators, the victim

will be counted twice in the female column on the neglect row in the table.

Percentages are

calculated against the total number of duplicate perpetrators for each maltreatment type.

Slightly more victims are maltreated by (51.9%) by female perpetrators than male perpetra-

tors (47.3%) nationally, but analyzing the maltreatment types by perpetrator sex reveals some

differences. Most victims with substantiated medical neglect have a female perpetrator at 70.5

percent, compared to 29.1 percent by a male perpetrator. More victims of neglect have female

perpetrators (58.5%) than male perpetrators (41.1%). Perpetrator sex is evenly split in victims

who are physically abused with 48.9 percent female and 49.5 percent male. Sexual abuse is

mostly perpetrated by males (88.7%) with less than 10 percent (8.4%) by female perpetrators.

More victims of the “other” maltreatment type have male perpetrators (64.9%) than female

perpetrators (34.4%). See table 7–9 and related notes.

Also known as a report, child, maltreatment type, perpetrator count. If a victim has more than one perpetrator, the

perpetrator may or may not be substantiated for all maltreatment types experienced by the victim.

Exhibit 7–F Victims of Sex Abuse by Sex and Age, 2022

Girls are the overwhelming majority of sex abuse victims for all ages

Based on data from 52 states. See table 7–8.

Child Maltreatment 2022

chApter 7: Special Focus 100

Conclusion

As shown in this chapter, conducting multidimensional analyses should continue to not only

deepen the child welfare eld’s understanding of the problem, but also to promote discussion

and inform policy and program decision makers about how to best support child welfare

involved families.

Exhibit and Table Notes

The following pages contain the data tables referenced in chapter 7. Specic information about

state submissions can be found in Appendix D, State Commentary. Additional information

regarding the exhibits and tables is provided below.

General

During data analyses, thresholds are set to ensure data quality is balanced with the need to

report data from as many states as possible. States may be excluded from an analysis for data

quality issues. Exclusion rules are listed in the individual table notes below. Not every table has

an exclusion rule or notes.

■ The data for all tables is from the Child File.

■ The number of victims is a duplicate count.

■ A child may have been the victim of more than one type of maltreatment, therefore, the

maltreatment type count is a duplicate count.

■ Only substantiated maltreatment types are included in this report and in this chapter each

maltreatment type is counted for each substantiation.

■ The count of victims includes children with dispositions of substantiated or indicated.

■ The row labeled Reporting States displays the count of states that provided data for that

analysis.

■ Not every state reports all maltreatment types.

■ National totals and calculations appear in a single row labeled National instead of separate

rows labeled total, rate, or percent.

■ Dashes are inserted into cells without any data.

Table 7–1 Victims by Number of Selected Maltreatment Type Substantiations,

2022

■ A child is counted in this analysis if the child is determined to be a victim of the selected

maltreatment type either alone or in a combination with additional maltreatment type(s).

Table 7–2 Maltreatment Type Combinations, 2022

■ A child may be reported with up to four maltreatment types in each record.

■ The maltreatment type category called remaining combinations has fewer than 300

victims for each combination.

■ Combinations are at the record level to show the result of the investigation.

Table 7–3 Maltreatment Types of Victims by Report Source, 2022

■ This analysis uses a duplicate count of report sources and substantiated maltreatments.

■ States with less than 85.0 percent of known report sources are excluded.

■ States with more than 20.0 percent of known report sources reported as “other” are

excluded.

Child Maltreatment 2022

chApter 7: Special Focus 101

■ One state is excluded at the state’s request for reporting errors.

■ If a child is reported twice with the same report source and substantiated maltreatments,

the child is counted both times.

■ Nonprofessional report sources are grouped into one category labeled nonprofessional and

unclassied report sources are grouped into one category labeled unclassied.

Table 7–4 Maltreatment Types of Victims by Known Race or Ethnicity, 2022

■ Counts associated with each racial group are exclusive and do not include Hispanic ethnicity.

Only those states that have both race and ethnicity population data are included in this analysis.

■ States were excluded from this analysis if more than 30.0 percent of victims were reported

without a race or ethnicity.

Table 7–5 Victims of Neglect by Sex and Age, 2022

■ Unknown gender includes not collected/not applicable, and unknown or missing.

■ Age is age at report. This means if a child has two substantiated reports, with a birthday in

between the two reports, both ages will be counted.

■ A child is counted in this analysis if the child is determined to be a victim of neglect either

alone or in combination with additional maltreatment types.

Table 7–6 Victims of Physical Abuse by Sex and Age, 2022

■ Unknown gender includes not collected/not applicable, and unknown or missing.

■ Age is age at report. This means if a child has two substantiated reports, with a birthday in

between the two reports, both ages will be counted.

■ A child is counted in this analysis if the child is determined to be a victim of physical

abuse either alone or in combination with additional maltreatment types.

Table 7–7 Victims of Psychological Maltreatment by Sex and Age, 2022

■ Unknown gender includes not collected/not applicable, and unknown or missing.

■ Age is age at report. This means if a child has two substantiated reports, with a birthday in

between the two reports, both ages will be counted.

■ A child is counted in this analysis if the child is determined to be a victim of psychological

maltreatment either alone or in combination with additional maltreatment types.

Table 7–8 Victims of Sexual Abuse by Sex and Age, 2022

■ Unknown gender includes not collected/not applicable, and unknown or missing.

■ Age is age at report. This means if a child has two substantiated reports, with a birthday in

between the two reports, both ages will be counted.

■ A child is counted in this analysis if the child is determined to be a victim of sexual abuse

either alone or in combination with additional maltreatment types.

Table 7–9 Maltreatment Types of Victims by Perpetrator Sex, 2022

■ Unknown gender includes not collected/not applicable, and unknown or missing.

■ For this analysis a victim is counted for each substantiated maltreatment and each

perpetrator.

Child Maltreatment 2022

chApter 7: Special Focus 102

Table 7–1 Victims by Number of Selected Maltreatment Type Substantiations, 2022

Maltreatment Type

Reporting

States

Substantiation

Substantiations

4 or More

Substantiations Total Victims

Substantiation

Percent

Substantiations

Percent

Substantiations

Percent

4 or More

Substantiations

Percent

Neglect 52 387,198 25,067 2,674 506 415,445 93.2 6.0 0.6 0.1

Physical Abuse 52 92,400 2,475 131 20 95,026 97. 2 2.6 0.1 0.0

Psychological

Maltreatment

47 36,869 1,057 86 18 38,030 96.9 2.8 0.2 0.0

Sexual Abuse 52 57,792 1,186 57 9 59,044 97.9 2.0 0.1 0.0

Table 7–2 Maltreatment Type Combinations, 2022

Maltreatment Type Combinations Maltreatment Type

Maltreatment Type

Percent

ONE TYPE -

Medical Neglect only 4,373 0.7

Neglect only 387,580 64.3

Other only 12,984 2.2

Physical Abuse only 59,829 9.9

Psychological Maltreatment only 18,883 3.1

Sexual Abuse only 49,086 8.1

Sex Trafcking only 755 0.1

Unknown only 343 0.1

Total One Type 533,833 88.6

TWO TYPES - -

Neglect and Medical Neglect 5,160 0.9

Neglect and Other 5,286 0.9

Neglect and Physical Abuse 25,597 4.2

Neglect and Psychological Maltreatment 10,408 1.7

Neglect and Sexual Abuse 7,534 1.3

Physical Abuse and Other 512 0.1

Physical Abuse and Psychological

Maltreatment 5,328 0.9

Physical Abuse and Sexual Abuse 1,254 0.2

Sexual Abuse and Psychological Maltreatment 468 0.1

Remaining combinations two types 1,006 0.2

Total Two Types 62,553 10.4

THREE TYPES - -

Neglect, Physical Abuse, and Psychological

Maltreatment

2,792 0.5

Physical, Neglect, and Medical Neglect 647 0.1

Neglect, Physical Abuse, and Sexual Abuse 595 0.1

Neglect, Sexual, and Psychological

Maltreatment

347 0.1

Remaining combinations three types 1,211 0.2

Total Three Types 5,592 0.9

FOUR TYPES 488 0.1

National 602,466 100.0

Based on data from 52 states.

Child Maltreatment 2022

chApter 7: Special Focus 103

Table 7–3 Maltreatment Types of Victims by Report Source, 2022 (continues below)

Maltreatment Types

Child Daycare

Providers

Education

Personnel

Foster Care

Providers

Legal and Law

Enforcement

Personnel

Medical

Personnel

Mental Health

Personnel

Social

Services

Personnel

Non-

professional Unclassied Total

Medical Neglect 31 1,948 41 1,101 3,439 383 2,053 1,292 969 11,257

Neglect 1,314 42,306 1,296 162,452 55,380 10,993 50,499 46,465 44,649 415,354

Other 53 598 14 7,849 1,243 208 1,463 1,240 815 13,483

Physical Abuse 710 14,541 405 30,265 16,293 2,994 10,541 9,868 7,005 92,622

Psychological Maltreatment

88 4,415 111 16,278 2,228 1,810 4,103 4,931 4,172 38,136

Sexual Abuse 139 8,253 416 19,397 4,886 5,101 6,921 6,190 4,527 55,830

Sex Trafcking 2 105 21 426 90 57 271 58 101 1,131

Unknown 1 23 1 69 84 - 58 94 23 353

National 2,338 72,189 2,305 237,837 83,643 21,546 75,909 70,138 62,261 628,166

Based on data from 48 states.

Table 7–3 Maltreatment Types of Victims by Report Source, 2022

Maltreatment Types

Child Daycare

Providers

Percent

Education

Personnel

Percent

Foster Care

Providers

Percent

Legal and Law

Enforcement

Personnel

Percent

Medical

Personnel

Percent

Mental Health

Personnel

Percent

Social

Services

Personnel

Percent

Non-

professional

Percent

Unclassied

Percent Total Percent

Medical Neglect 1.3 2.7 1.8 0.5 4.1 1.8 2.7 1.8 1.6 1.8

Neglect 56.2 58.6 56.2 68.3 66.2 51.0 66.5 66.2 71.7 66.1

Other 2.3 0.8 0.6 3.3 1.5 1.0 1.9 1.8 1.3 2.1

Physical Abuse 30.4 20.1 17.6 12.7 19.5 13.9 13.9 14.1 11.3 14.7

Psychological Maltreatment

3.8 6.1 4.8 6.8 2.7 8.4 5.4 7.0 6.7 6.1

Sexual Abuse 5.9 11.4 18.0 8.2 5.8 23.7 9.1 8.8 7.3 8.9

Sex Trafcking 0.1 0.1 0.9 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.2

Unknown 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1

National 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Based on data from 48 states.

Child Maltreatment 2022

Chapter 7: Special Focus 104

Table 7–4 Maltreatment Types of Victims by Known Race or Ethnicity, 2022 (continues below)

Race or Ethnicity Medical Neglect Neglect Other Physical Abuse

Psychological

Maltreatment Sexual Abuse Sex Trafcking Unknown

Total

Maltreatment

Typ es

American Indian or Alaska Native 110 7,148 145 908 1,326 427 7 3 10,074

Asian 103 4,310 157 783 265 634 10 1 6,263

Black or African-American 3,052 94,542 4,160 24,088 5,912 8,606 239 131 140,730

Hispanic 2,097 109,542 3,160 15,764 7,912 16,212 207 45 154,939

Two or More Races 625 26,444 1,455 5,867 2,934 2,382 56 12 39,775

Native Hawaiian or Other

Pacic Islander

20 820 370 288 213 171 1 - 1,883

White 4,408 181,934 8,139 41,941 16,599 26,492 416 150 280,079

National 10,415 424,740 17,586 89,639 35,161 54,924 936 342 633,743

Based on data from 50 states.

Table 7–5 Victims of Neglect by Sex and Age, 2022

Age Boys Girls Unknown

Total Duplicate

Victims

Boys Percent

Age

Girls Percent

Age

Unknown

Percent Age

<1 36,939 34,374 309 71,622 51.6 48.0 0.4

1 17,15 8 15,697 127 32,982 52.0 47.6 0.4

2 16,555 14,869 141 31,565 52.4 47.1 0.4

3 15,480 14,009 110 29,599 52.3 47.3 0.4

4 14,169 12,863 79 27,111 52.3 47.4 0.3

5 13,591 12,551 91 26,233 51.8 47.8 0.3

6 13,417 12,007 68 25,492 52.6 47.1 0.3

7 12,349 11,457 88 23,894 51.7 47.9 0.4

8 11,326 10,879 51 22,256 50.9 48.9 0.2

9 10,603 10,251 53 20,907 50.7 49.0 0.3

10 10,010 9,736 50 19,796 50.6 49.2 0.3

11 9,222 9,523 48 18,793 49.1 50.7 0.3

12 9,166 9,933 40 19,139 47.9 51.9 0.2

13 8,412 10,365 44 18,821 44.7 55.1 0.2

14 7,803 10,262 34 18,099 43.1 56.7 0.2

15 7,157

9,494 27 16,678 42.9

56.9 0.2

16 6,050 8,036 30 14,116 42.9 56.9 0.2

17 3,919 5,215 37 9,171 42.7 56.9 0.4

18 and older, unborn,

unknown

606 535 69 1,210 50.1 44.2 5.7

National 223,932 222,056 1,496 447,484 50.0 49.6 0.3

Based on data from 52 states.

Table 7–4 Maltreatment Types of Victims by Known Race or Ethnicity, 2022

Race or Ethnicity

Medical Neglect

Percent Neglect Percent Other Percent

Physical Abuse

Percent

Psychological

Maltreatment

Percent

Sexual Abuse

Percent

Sex Trafcking

Percent

Unknown

Percent

Total

Maltreatment

Typ es

American Indian or Alaska Native 1.1 71.0 1.4 9.0 13.2 4.2 0.1 0.0 100.0

Asian 1.6 68.8 2.5 12.5 4.2 10.1 0.2 0.0 100.0

Black or African-American 2.2 67.2 3.0 17.1 4.2 6.1 0.2 0.1 100.0

Hispanic 1.4 70.7 2.0 10.2 5.1 10.5 0.1 0.0 100.0

Two or More Races 1.6 66.5 3.7 14.8 7.4 6.0 0.1 0.0 100.0

Native Hawaiian or Other

Pacic Islander

1.1 43.5 19.6 15.3 11.3 9.1 0.1 0.0 100.0

White 1.6 65.0 2.9 15.0 5.9 9.5 0.1 0.1 100.0

National 1.6 67.0 2.8 14.1 5.5 8.7 0.1 0.1 100.0

Based on data from 50 states.

Child Maltreatment 2022

chApter 7: Special Focus 105

Table 7–6 Victims of Physical Abuse by Sex and Age, 2022

Age Boys Girls Unknown

Total Duplicate

Victims

Boys Percent

Age

Girls Percent

Age

Unknown

Percent Age

<1 8,205 7,095 34 15,334 53.5 46.3 0.2

1 2,810 2,338 15 5,16 3 54.4 45.3 0.3

2 2,615 2,128 26 4,769 54.8 44.6 0.5

3 2,629 2,171 14 4,814 54.6 45.1 0.3

4 2,727 2,028 6 4,761 57.3 42.6 0.1

5 2,918 2,221 5 5,144 56.7 43.2 0.1

6 3,051 2,145 14 5,210 58.6 41.2 0.3

7 2,829 2,095 11 4,935 57.3 42.5 0.2

8 2,663 2,044 15 4,722 56.4 43.3 0.3

9 2,551 2,051 16 4,618 55.2 44.4 0.3

10 2,455 1,953 5 4,413 55.6 44.3 0.1

11 2,405 2,110 5 4,520 53.2 46.7 0.1

12 2,389 2,535 12 4,936 48.4 51.4 0.2

13 2,447 3,017 5 5,469 44.7 55.2 0.1

14 2,238 3,292 15 5,545 40.4 59.4 0.3

15 2,128

3,212 7 5,347

39.8 60.1 0.1

16 1,872 2,691 12 4,575 40.9 58.8 0.3

17 1,282 1,951 9 3,242 39.5 60.2 0.3

18 and older, unborn,

unknown age

159 126 23 308 51.6 40.9 7.5

National 50,373 47,203 249 97,825 51.5 48.3 0.3

Based on data from 52 states.

Table 7–7 Victims of Psychological Maltreatment by Sex and Age, 2022

Age Boys Girls Unknown

Total Duplicate

Victims

Boys Percent

Age

Girls Percent

Age

Unknown

Percent Age

<1 1,452 1,456 - 2,917 49.8 49.9 -

1 1,218 1,15 8 7 2,383 51.1 48.6 0.3

2 1,162 1,129 - 2,300 50.5 49.1 -

3 1,083 1,134 4 2,221 48.8 51.1 0.2

4 1,164 1,114 3 2,281 51.0 48.8 0.1

5 1,147 1,149 3 2,299 49.9 50.0 0.1

6 1,226 1,097 6 2,329 52.6 47.1 0.3

7 1,179 1,165 7 2,351 50.1 49.6 0.3

8 1,169 1,139 3 2,311 50.6 49.3 0.1

9 1,091 1,120 3 2,214 49.3 50.6 0.1

10 1,027 1,129 3 2,159 47.6 52.3 0.1

11 1,078 1,155 4 2,237 48.2 51.6 0.2

12 957 1,221 6 2,184 43.8 55.9 0.3

13 890 1,304 2 2,196 40.5 59.4 0.1

14 855 1,264 6 2,125 40.2 59.5 0.3

727 1,172 7 1,906

38.1 61.5 0.4

16 652 1,108 7 1,767 36.9 62.7 0.4

17 379 669 2 1,050 36.1 63.7 0.2

18 and older, unborn,

and unknown

43 46 4 93 46.2 49.5 4.3

National 18,499 20,729 95 39,323 47.0 52.7 0.2

Child Maltreatment 2022

Chapter 7: Special Focus 106

Table 7–9 Maltreatment Types of Victims by Perpetrator Sex, 2022

Maltreatment Type Female Male Unknown Total

Female

Percent Total Percent

Unclassied

Percent

Total Report

Sources

Percent

Medical Neglect 9,575 3,960 54 13,589 70.5 29.1 0.4 100.0

Neglect 317,821 223,285 2,149 543,255 58.5 41.1 0.4 100.0

Other 7,732 14,572 143 22,447 34.4 64.9 0.6 100.0

Physical Abuse 52,842 53,537 1,715 108,094 48.9 49.5 1.6 100.0

Psychological or Emotional

Maltreatment

17,354 24,969 111 42,434 40.9 58.8 0.3 100.0

Sexual Abuse 5,095 53,513 1,738 60,346 8.4 88.7 2.9 100.0

Sex Trafcking 144 541 351 1,036 13.9 52.2 33.9 100.0

Unknown 24 24 1 49 49.0 49.0 2.0 100.0

National 410,587 374,401 6,262 791,250 51.9 47.3 0.8 100.0

Based on data from 50 states.

Table 7–8 Victims of Sexual Abuse by Sex and Age, 2022

Age Boys Girls Unknown

Total Duplicate

Victims

Girls Percent

Age

Boys

Percent

Age

nknown

Percent Age

<1 135 167 - 302 55.3 44.7 -

1 143 182 3 328 55.5 43.6 0.9

2 197 297 - 494 60.1 39.9 -

3 324 737 5 1,066 69.1 30.4 0.5

4 470 1,213 5 1,688 71.9 27.8 0.3

5 578 1,422 3 2,003 71.0 28.9 0.1

6 686 1,591 7 2,284 69.7 30.0 0.3

7 700 1,711 4 2,415 70.8 29.0 0.2

8 720 1,911 17 2,648 72.2 27.2 0.6

9 650 2,397 8 3,055 78.5 21.3 0.3

10 641 3,070 13 3,724 82.4 17.2 0.3

11 658 4,078 19 4,755 85.8 13.8 0.4

12 687 5,114 19 5,820 87.9 11.8 0.3

13 701 6,089 22 6,812 89.4 10.3 0.3

14 713 6,160 19 6,892 89.4 10.3 0.3

710 5,997 20 6,727 89.1 10.6 0.3

16 607 4,698 15 5,320

88.3 1

1.4 0.3

17 466 3,286 8 3,760 87.4 12.4 0.2

18 and older, unborn,

unknown age

59 214 5 278 77.0 21.2 1.8

National 9,845 50,334 192 60,371 83.4 16.3 0.3

Based on data from 52 states.

Appendixes

107

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendixes

The items listed under number (10), (13), and (14) are not collected by NCANDS. Items (17) and (18) were enacted with the

Justice for Victims of Trafcking Act of 2015 (P.L. 114–22) and The Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act (CARA) of

2016 (P.L. 114–198). States began reporting these items with FFY 2018 data.

CAPTA Data Items

The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA), as amended by P.L. 111–320,

the CAPTA Reauthorization Act of 2010, afrms, “Each State to which a grant is made

under this section shall annually work with the Secretary to provide, to the maximum

extent practicable, a report that includes the following:”

1) The number of children who were reported to the state during the year as victims

of child abuse or neglect.

2) Of the number of children described in paragraph (1), the number with respect to

whom such reports were—

a) Substantiated;

b) Unsubstantiated; or

c) Determined to be false.

3) 3) Of the number of children described in paragraph (2)—

a) the number that did not receive services during the year under the state

program funded under this section or an equivalent state program;

b) the number that received services during the year under the state program

funded under this section or an equivalent state program; and

c) the number that were removed from their families during the year by disposi-

tion of the case.

4) The number of families that received preventive services, including use of dif-

ferential response, from the state during the year.

5) The number of deaths in the state during the year resulting from child abuse or

neglect.

6) Of the number of children described in paragraph (5), the number of such

children who were in foster care.

a) The number of child protective service personnel responsible for the—

i.) intake of reports led in the previous year;

ii.) screening of such reports;

iii.) assessment of such reports; and

iv.) investigation of such reports.

b) The average caseload for the workers described in subparagraph (A).

8) The agency response time with respect to each such report with respect to initial

investigation of reports of child abuse or neglect.

9) The response time with respect to the provision of services to families and

children where an allegation of child abuse or neglect has been made.

APPENDIX A

Appendix A: CAPTA Data Items 108

Child Maltreatment 2022

10) For child protective service personnel responsible for intake, screening, assess-

ment, and investigation of child abuse and neglect reports in the state—

a) information on the education, qualications, and training requirements

established by the state for child protective service professionals, including

for entry and advancement in the profession, including advancement to

supervisory positions;

b) data of the education, qualications, and training of such personnel;

c) demographic information of the child protective service personnel; and

d) information on caseload or workload requirements for such personnel,

including requirements for average number and maximum number of cases

per child protective service worker and supervisor.

11) The number of children reunited with their families or receiving family preserva-

tion services that, within ve years, result in subsequent substantiated reports of

child abuse or neglect, including the death of the child.

12) The number of children for whom individuals were appointed by the court to

represent the best interests of such children and the average number of out of

court contacts between such individuals and children.

13) The annual report containing the summary of activities of the citizen review

panels of the state required by subsection (c)(6).

14) The number of children under the care of the state child protection system who

are transferred into the custody of the state juvenile justice system.

15) The number of children referred to a child protective services system under

subsection (b)(2)(B)(ii).

16) The number of children determined to be eligible for referral, and the number

of children referred, under subsection (b)(2)(B)(xxi), to agencies providing early

intervention services under part C of the Individuals with Disabilities Education

Act (20 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.).

17) The number of children determined to be victims described in subsection (b) (2)

(B)(xxiv).

18) The number of infants—

a) identied under subsection (b)(2)(B)(ii);

b) for whom a plan of safe care was developed under subsection (b)(2)(B) (iii);

and

c) for whom a referral was made for appropriate services, including services for

the affected family or caregiver, under subsection (b)(2)(B) (iii).

Appendix A: CAPTA Data Items 109

Child Maltreatment 2022

Glossary

Acronyms

AFCARS: Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System

AFCARS ID: Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System identier

CAPTA: Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act

CARA: Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act

CASA: Court Appointed Special Advocate

CBCAP: Community-Based Child Abuse Prevention

CFSR: Child and Family Services Reviews

CHILD ID: Child identier

CPS: Child protective services

FFY: Federal scal year

FIPS: Federal Information Processing Standards

FTE: Full-time equivalent

GAL: Guardian ad litem

IDEA: Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

IPSE: Infants with prenatal substance exposure

NCANDS: National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System

NYTD: National Youth in Transition Database

MIECHV: Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting

OMB: Ofce of Management and Budget

PERPETRATOR ID: Perpetrator identier

PSSF: Promoting Safe and Stable Families

REPORT ID: Report identier

SDC: Summary data component

SSBG: Social Services Block Grant

TANF: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

WORKER ID: Worker identier

APPENDIX B

Appendix B: Glossary 110

Child Maltreatment 2022

Denitions

ADOPTION AND FOSTER CARE ANALYSIS AND REPORTING SYSTEM

(AFCARS): The federal collection of case-level information on all children in foster care

for whom state child welfare agencies have responsibility for placement, care, or supervision

and on children who are adopted under the auspices of the state’s public child welfare agency.

AFCARS also includes information on foster and adoptive parents.

ADOPTION SERVICES: Activities to assist with bringing about the adoption of a child.

ADOPTIVE PARENT: A person who become the permanent parent through adoption, with

all of the social, legal rights and responsibilities of any parent.

AFCARS ID: The record number used in the AFCARS data submission or the value that

would be assigned.

AGE: A number representing the years that the child or perpetrator had been alive at the

time of the alleged maltreatment.

AGENCY FILE: A data le submitted by a state to NCANDS on an annual basis. The le

contains supplemental aggregated child abuse and neglect data from such agencies as medi-

cal examiners’ ofces and non-CPS services providers.

ALCOHOL ABUSE: Compulsive use of alcohol that is not of a temporary nature. This

risk factor can be applied to a caregiver or a child. If applied to a child, it can include Fetal

Alcohol Syndrome and exposure to alcohol during pregnancy.

ALLEGED PERPETRATOR: An individual who is named in a referral to have caused or

knowingly allowed the maltreatment of a child.

ALLEGED MALTREATMENT: Suspected child abuse and neglect. In NCANDS, such

suspicions are included in a referral to a CPS agency.

ALLEGED VICTIM: Child about whom a referral regarding maltreatment was made to a

CPS agency.

ALLEGED VICTIM REPORT SOURCE: A child who alleges to have been a victim of

child maltreatment and who makes a CPS referral of the allegation. Only referrals that were

screened-in (and become reports) for an investigation or assessment have report sources.

ALTERNATIVE RESPONSE: The provision of a response other than an investigation that

determines a child or family is in need of services. A determination of maltreatment is not

made and a perpetrator is not determined. States may report the disposition as alternative

response victim or alternative response nonvictim, however, in this report the categories are

combined.

Appendix B: Glossary 111

Child Maltreatment 2022

AMERICAN INDIAN or ALASKA NATIVE: A person having origins in any of the

original peoples of North and South America (including Central America), and who main-

tains tribal afliation or community attachment. Race may be self-identied or identied by

a caregiver.

ANONYMOUS REPORT SOURCE: An individual who noties a CPS agency of sus-

pected child maltreatment without identifying himself or herself.

ASIAN: A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast

Asia, or the Indian subcontinent, including, for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan,

Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam. Race may be

self-identied or identied by a caregiver.

ASSESSMENT: A process by which the CPS agency determines whether the child or other

persons involved in the report of alleged maltreatment is in need of services. When used as

an alternative to an investigation, it is a process designed to gain a greater understanding

about family strengths, needs, and resources.

BEHAVIOR PROBLEM, CHILD: A child’s behavior in the school or community that

adversely affects socialization, learning, growth, and moral development. This risk factor

may include adjudicated or nonadjudicated behavior problems such as running away from

home or a placement.

BIOLOGICAL PARENT: The birth mother or father of the child.

BLACK or AFRICAN-AMERICAN: A person having origins in any of the Black racial

groups of Africa. Race may be self-identied or identied by a caregiver.

BOY: A male child younger than 18 years.

CAREGIVER: A person responsible for the care and supervision of a child.

CAREGIVER RISK FACTOR: A caregiver’s characteristic, disability, problem, or environ-

ment, which could tend to decrease the ability to provide adequate care for a child.

CASE-LEVEL DATA: States submit case-level data by constructing an electronic le of

child-specic records for each report of alleged child abuse and neglect that received a CPS

response. Only completed reports that resulted in a disposition (or nding) as an outcome of

the CPS response during the reporting year, are submitted in each state’s data le. The data

submission containing these case-level data is called the Child File.

CASELOAD: The number of CPS responses (cases) handled by workers.

CASE MANAGEMENT SERVICES: Activities for the arrangement, coordination, and

monitoring of services to meet the needs of children and their families.

CHILD: A person who has not attained the lesser of (a) the age of 18 or (b) the age specied

by the child protection law of the state in which the child resides. For sex trafcking victims

only, a state may dene a child as a person who has not attained the age of 24.

Appendix B: Glossary 112

Child Maltreatment 2022

CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT STATE GRANT: Funding to the states for programs

serving abused and neglected children, awarded under the Child Abuse Prevention and

Treatment Act (CAPTA). May be used to assist states with intake and assessment, screening

and investigation of child abuse and neglect reports, improving risk and safety assessment

protocols, training child protective service workers and mandated reporters, and improving

services to disabled infants with life-threatening conditions.

CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION AND TREATMENT ACT (CAPTA) (42 U.S.C. 5101

et seq): The key federal legislation addressing child abuse and neglect, which was origi-

nally enacted on January 31, 1974 (P.L. 93–247). CAPTA has been reauthorized and amended

several times, most recently on December 20, 2010, by the CAPTA Reauthorization Act of

2010 (P.L. 111–320). CAPTA provides federal funding to states in support of prevention,

assessment, investigation, prosecution, and treatment activities for child abuse and neglect.

It also provides grants to public agencies and nonprot organizations, including Tribes,

for demonstration programs and projects; and the federal support for research, evaluation,

technical assistance, and data collection activities.

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEWS (CFSR): The 1994 Amendments to the

Social Security Act (SSA) authorized the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

(HHS) to review state child and family service programs to ensure conformity with the

requirements in titles IV–B and IV–E of the SSA. Under a nal rule, which became effective

March 25, 2000, states are assessed for substantial conformity with certain federal require-

ments for child protective, foster care, adoption, family preservation and family support, and

independent living services.

CHILD DAYCARE PROVIDER: A person with a temporary caregiver responsibility, but

who is not related to the child, such as a daycare center staff member, family provider, or

babysitter. Does not include persons with legal custody or guardianship of the child.

CHILD DISPOSITION: A determination made by a social service agency that evidence is

or is not sufcient under state law to conclude that maltreatment occurred. A disposition is

applied to each child within a report.

CHILD DEATH REVIEW TEAM: A state or local team of professionals who review all or a

sample of cases of children who are alleged to have died due to maltreatment or other causes.

CHILD FILE: A data le submitted by a state to NCANDS. The le contains child-specic

records for each report of alleged child abuse and neglect that received a CPS response. Only

completed reports that resulted in a disposition (or nding) as an outcome of the CPS response

during the reporting year, are submitted in each state’s data le.

CHILD IDENTIFIER (Child ID): A unique identication assigned to each child. This

identication is not the state’s child identication but is an encrypted identication assigned

by the state for the purposes of the NCANDS data collection.

CHILD MALTREATMENT: The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) deni-

tion of child abuse and neglect is, at a minimum: Any recent act or failure to act on the part of a

parent or caretaker which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or

exploitation; or an act or failure to act, which presents an imminent risk of serious harm.

Appendix B: Glossary 113

Child Maltreatment 2022

CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES (CPS) AGENCY: An ofcial state agency having

the responsibility to receive and respond to allegations of suspected child abuse and neglect,

determine the validity of the allegations, and provide services to protect and serve children

and their families.

CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES (CPS) RESPONSE: CPS agencies conduct a

response for all reports of child maltreatment. The response may be an investigation, which

determines whether a child was maltreated or is at-risk of maltreatment and establishes

if an intervention is needed. The majority of reports receive investigations. A small, but

growing, number of reports receive an alternative response, which focuses primarily upon

the needs of the family and usually does not include a determination regarding the alleged

maltreatment(s).

CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES (CPS) SUPERVISOR: The manager of the case-

worker assigned to a report of child maltreatment at the time of the report disposition.

CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES (CPS) WORKER: The person assigned to a report of

child maltreatment at the time of the report disposition.

CHILD RECORD: A case-level record in the Child File containing the data associated with

one child.

CHILD RISK FACTOR: A child’s characteristic, disability, problem, or environment that

may affect the child’s safety.

CHILD VICTIM: A child for whom the state determined at least one maltreatment was

substantiated or indicated. This includes a child who died of child abuse and neglect. This

is a change from prior years when children with dispositions of alternative response victim

were included as victims. It is important to note that a child may be a victim in one report

and a nonvictim in another report.

CHILDREN’S BUREAU: The Children’s Bureau partners with federal, state, tribal, and

local agencies to improve the overall health and well-being of our nation’s children and

families. It is the federal agency responsible for the collection and analysis of NCANDS data.

CLOSED WITH NO FINDING: A disposition that does not conclude with a specic nding

because the CPS response could not be completed.

COMMUNITY-BASED CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION PROGRAM (CBCAP):

This program provides funding to states to develop, operate, expand, and enhance commu-

nity-based, prevention-focused programs and activities designed to strengthen and support

families to prevent child abuse and neglect. The program was reauthorized, amended, and

renamed as part of the CAPTA amendments in 2010. To receive these funds, the Governor

must designate a lead agency to receive the funds and implement the program.

COMPREHENSIVE ADDICTION AND RECOVERY ACT (CARA): Amended the Child

Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act in sections 106(b)(2)(B)(ii) and (iii) and by adding new

state reporting requirements to Section 106(d).

Appendix B: Glossary 114

Child Maltreatment 2022

COUNSELING SERVICES: Activities that apply therapeutic processes to individual,

family, situational, or occupational problems to resolve the problem or improve individual or

family functioning or circumstances.

COUNTY OF REPORT: The jurisdiction to which the report of alleged child maltreatment

was assigned for a CPS response.

COUNTY OF RESIDENCE: The jurisdiction in which the child was residing at the time of

the report of maltreatment.

COURT-APPOINTED REPRESENTATIVE: A person appointed by the court to represent

a child in an abuse and neglect proceeding and is often referred to as a guardian ad litem

(GAL). The representative makes recommendations to the court concerning the best interests

of the child.

COURT-APPOINTED SPECIAL ADVOCATE (CASA): Adult volunteers trained to

advocate for abused and neglected children who are involved in the juvenile court.

COURT ACTION: Legal action initiated by a representative of the CPS agency on behalf

of the child. This includes authorization to place the child in foster care, ling for temporary

custody, dependency, or termination of parental rights. It does not include criminal proceed-

ings against a perpetrator.

DAYCARE SERVICES: Activities provided to a child or children in a setting that meets

applicable standards of state and local law, in a center or home, for a portion of a 24-hour

day.

DISABILITY: A child is considered to have a disability if one of more of the following

risk factors has been identied or clinically diagnosed: child has a/an intellectual disability,

emotional disturbance, visual or hearing impairment, learning disability, physical disability,

behavior problem, or some other medical condition. In general, children with such conditions

are undercounted as not every child receives a clinical diagnostic assessment.

DISPOSITION: A determination made by a CPS agency that evidence is or is not sufcient

under state law to conclude that maltreatment occurred. A disposition is applied to each

alleged maltreatment in a report and to the report itself.

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: Any abusive, violent, coercive, forceful, or threatening act or

word inicted by one member of a family or household on another. This risk factor can be

applied to a caregiver. In NCANDS, the caregiver may be the perpetrator or the victim of the

domestic violence.

DRUG ABUSE: The compulsive use of drugs that is not of a temporary nature. This risk

factor can be applied to a caregiver or a child. If applied to a child, it can include infants

exposed to drugs during pregnancy.

DUPLICATE COUNT OF CHILDREN: Counting a child each time he or she was the

subject of a report. This count also is called a report-child pair.

Appendix B: Glossary 115

Child Maltreatment 2022

DUPLICATED COUNT OF PERPETRATORS: Counting a perpetrator each time the

perpetrator is associated with maltreating a child. This also is known as a report-child-perpe-

trator triad. For example, a perpetrator would be counted twice in the following situations: (1)

one child in two separate reports, (2) two children in a single report, and (3) two children in

two separate reports.

EDUCATION AND TRAINING SERVICES: Services provided to improve knowledge or

capacity of a given skill set, in a particular subject matter, or in personal or human develop-

ment. Services may include instruction or training in, but are not limited to, such issues as

consumer education, health education, community protection and safety education, literacy

education, English as a second language, and General Educational Development (G.E.D.).

Component services or activities may include screening, assessment, and testing; individual

or group instruction; tutoring; provision of books, supplies and instructional material;

counseling; transportation; and referral to community resources.

EDUCATION PERSONNEL: Employees of a public or private educational institution or

program; includes teachers, teacher assistants, administrators, and others directly associated

with the delivery of educational services.

EMOTIONAL DISTURBANCE: A clinically diagnosed condition exhibiting one or more of

the following characteristics over a long period of time and to a marked degree: an inability to

build or maintain satisfactory interpersonal relationships; inappropriate types of behavior or

feelings under normal circumstances; a general pervasive mood of unhappiness or depression;

or a tendency to develop physical symptoms or fears associated with personal problems. The

diagnosis is based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. This risk

factor includes schizophrenia and autism and can be applied to a child or a caregiver.

EMPLOYMENT SERVICES: Activities provided to assist individuals in securing employ-

ment or the acquiring of skills that promote opportunities for employment.

FA M ILY: A group of two or more persons related by birth, marriage, adoption, or emotional ties.

FAMILY PRESERVATION SERVICES: Services for children and families designed to

help families at risk or in crisis. This includes service programs designed to help children

return to families, be placed for adoption, or be placed in some other planned, permanent

living arrangement. Services also include preplacement preventive services programs, such

as intensive family preservation programs, designed to help children at risk of foster care

placement remain safely with their families; service programs designed to provide followup

care to families to whom a child has been returned after a foster care placement; respite care

of children to provide temporary relief for caregivers; services designed to improve parenting

skills; and infant safe haven programs.

FAMILY REUNIFICATION SERVICES: Services and activities that are provided to a

child that is removed from the child’s home and placed in a foster family home or a child care

institution or a child who has been returned home and to the parents or primary caregiver of

such a child, in order to facilitate the reunication of the child safely and appropriately within

a timely fashion and to ensure the strength and stability of the reunication. In the case of a

child who has been returned home, the services and activities shall only be provided during

the 15-month period that begins on the date that the child returns home. These services

Appendix B: Glossary 116

Child Maltreatment 2022

include: individual, group, and family counseling; inpatient, residential, or outpatient

substance abuse treatment services; mental health services; assistance to address domestic

violence, services designed to provide temporary child care and therapeutic services for

families, including crisis nurseries; peer-to-peer mentoring and support groups for parents

and primary caregivers; services and activities designed to facilitate access to and visitation

of children by parents and siblings; and transportation to or from any of these services and

activities.

FAMILY SUPPORT SERVICES: Community-based services designed to carry out

purposes including: promoting the safety and well-being of children and families; increasing

the strength and stability of families; supporting and retaining foster families; to increase

parents’ condence and competence in their parenting abilities; to afford children a safe,

stable, and supportive family environment; to strengthen parental relationships and promote

healthy marriages; and to enhance child development.

FATALITY: Death of a child as a result of abuse and neglect, because either an injury result-

ing from the abuse and neglect was the cause of death, or abuse and neglect were contribut-

ing factors to the cause of death.

FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR (FFY): The 12-month period from October 1 through

September 30 used by the federal government. The scal year is designated by the calendar

year in which it ends.

FEDERAL INFORMATION PROCESSING STANDARDS (FIPS): The federally

dened set of county codes for all states.

FINDING: See DISPOSITION.

FETAL ALCOHOL SPECTRUM DISORDERS: Scientists dene a broad range of effects

and symptoms caused by prenatal alcohol exposure under the umbrella term Fetal Alcohol

Spectrum Disorders (FASD). The medical disorders collectively labeled FASD include

the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies (IOM) diagnostic categories of Fetal

Alcohol Syndrome, Partial Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, Alcohol-Related Neurodevelopmental

Disorder, and Alcohol-Related Birth Defects. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of

Mental Disorders (DSM–5) also includes Neurobehavioral Disorder Associated with Prenatal

Alcohol Exposure. https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/brochures-and-fact-sheets/

understanding-fetal-alcohol-spectrum-disorders

FINANCIAL PROBLEM: A risk factor related to the family’s inability to provide sufficient

financial resources to meet minimum needs.

FOSTER CARE: Twenty-four-hour substitute care for children placed away from their

parents or guardians and for whom the state agency has placement and care responsibility.

This includes family foster homes, group homes, emergency shelters, residential facilities,

childcare institutions, etc. The NCANDS category applies regardless of whether the facil-ity

is licensed and whether payments are made by the state or local agency for the care of the

child, or whether there is federal matching of any payments made. Foster care may be

provided by those related or not related to the child. All children in care for more than 24

hours are counted.

Appendix B: Glossary 117

Child Maltreatment 2022

FOSTER PARENT: Individual who provides a home for orphaned, abused, neglected,

delinquent, or disabled children under the placement, care, or supervision of the state. The

person may be a relative or nonrelative and need not be licensed by the state agency to be

considered a foster parent.

FRIEND: A nonrelative acquainted with the child, the parent, or caregiver.

FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT (FTE): A computed statistic representing the number of full-

time employees if the number of hours worked by part-time employees had been worked by

full-time employees.

GIRL: A female child younger than 18 years.

GROUP HOME OR RESIDENTIAL CARE: A nonfamilial 24-hour care facility that may

be supervised by the state agency or governed privately.

GROUP HOME STAFF: Employee of a nonfamilial 24-hour care facility.

GUARDIAN AD LITEM (GAL): See COURT-APPOINTED REPRESENTATIVE.

HEALTH-RELATED AND HOME HEALTH SERVICES: Activities provided to attain

and maintain a favorable condition of health.

HISPANIC ETHNICITY: A person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central

American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race. See RACE.

HOME-BASED SERVICES: In-home activities provided to individuals or families to

assist with household or personal care that improve or maintain family well-being. Includes

homemaker, chore, home maintenance, and household management services.

HOUSING SERVICES: Activities designed to assist individuals or families to locate,

obtain, or retain suitable housing.

INADEQUATE HOUSING: A risk factor related to substandard, overcrowded, or unsafe

housing conditions, including homelessness.

INCIDENT DATE: The month, day, and year of the most recent, known incident of alleged

child maltreatment.

INDEPENDENT AND TRANSITIONAL LIVING SERVICES: Activities designed to

help older youth in foster care or homeless youth make the transition to independent living.

INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT ACT: A law

ensuring services to children with disabilities throughout the nation.

INFORMATION AND REFERRAL SERVICES: Resources or activities that provide facts

about services that are available from public and private providers. The facts are provided

after an assessment (not a clinical diagnosis or evaluation) of client needs.

Appendix B: Glossary 118

Child Maltreatment 2022

INDICATED OR REASON TO SUSPECT: A disposition that concludes that maltreatment

could not be substantiated under state law or policy, but there was a reason to suspect that

a child may have been maltreated or was at-risk of maltreatment. This is applicable only to

states that distinguish between substantiated and indicated dispositions.

INFANTS WITH PRENATAL SUBSTANCE EXPOSURE (IPSE): Infants born with

and identied as being affected by substance abuse or withdrawal symptoms resulting from

prenatal drug exposure, or a Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder, including a requirement that

health care providers involved in the delivery or care of such infants notify the child protec-

tive services system of the occurrence of such condition of such infants.

IN-HOME SERVICES: Any service provided to the family while the child’s residence is in

the home. Services may be provided directly in the child’s home or a professional setting.

INTAKE: The activities associated with the receipt of a referral and the decision of whether

to accept it for a CPS response.

INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY: A clinically diagnosed condition of reduced general

cognitive and motor functioning existing concurrently with decits in adaptive behavior that

adversely affect socialization and learning. This risk factor can be applied to a caregiver or a

child.

INTENTIONALLY FALSE: A disposition that indicates a conclusion that the person who

made the allegation of maltreatment knew that the allegation was not true.

INVESTIGATION: A type of CPS response that involves the gathering of objective informa-

tion to determine whether a child was maltreated or is at-risk of maltreatment and establishes

if an intervention is needed. Generally, includes face-to-face contact with the alleged victim

and results in a disposition as to whether the alleged maltreatment occurred.

INVESTIGATION START DATE: The date when CPS initially had face-to-face contact

with the alleged victim. If this face-to-face contact is not possible, the date would be when

CPS initially contacted any party who could provide information essential to the investiga-

tion or assessment.

INVESTIGATION WORKER: A CPS agency person who performs either an investigation

response or alternative response to determine whether the alleged victim(s) in the screened-in

referral (report) was maltreated or is at-risk of maltreatment.

JUSTICE FOR VICTIMS OF TRAFFICKING ACT: Amended the Child Abuse

Prevention and Treatment Act under title VIII—Better Response for Victims of Child Sex

Trafcking by adding state reporting requirements to Section 106(d).

JUVENILE COURT PETITION: A legal document requesting that the court take action

regarding the child’s status as a result of the CPS response; usually a petition requesting the

child be declared a dependent and placed in an out-of-home setting.

Appendix B: Glossary 119

Child Maltreatment 2022

LEARNING DISABILITY: A clinically diagnosed disorder in basic psychological processes

involved with understanding or using language, spoken or written, that may manifest itself

in an imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell or use mathematical calcula-

tions. The term includes conditions such as perceptual disability, brain injury, minimal brain

dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia. This risk factor term can be applied to a

caregiver or a child.

LEGAL GUARDIAN: Adult person who has been given legal custody and guardianship of a

minor.

LEGAL AND LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL: People employed by a local, state,

tribal, or federal justice agency. This includes police, courts, district attorney’s ofce, attor-

neys, probation or other community corrections agency, and correctional facilities.

LEGAL SERVICES: Activities provided by a lawyer, or other person(s) under the supervi-

sion of a lawyer, to assist individuals in seeking or obtaining legal help in civil matters such

as housing, divorce, child support, guardianship, paternity, and legal separation.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: The type of proof required by state statute to make a specic

nding or disposition regarding an allegation of child abuse and neglect.

LIVING ARRANGEMENT: The environment in which a child was residing at the time of

the alleged incident of maltreatment.

MALTREATMENT TYPE: A particular form of child maltreatment that received a CPS

response. Types include medical neglect, neglect or deprivation of necessities, physical abuse,

psychological or emotional maltreatment, sexual abuse, sex trafcking, and other forms

included in state law. NCANDS conducts analyses on maltreatments that received a disposi-

tion of substantiated or indicated. States should not use “8-other” maltreatment type as a ag

for maltreatment death.

MATERNAL, INFANT, AND EARLY CHILDHOOD HOME VISITING PROGRAM:

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (P.L. 111–148) authorized the cre-

ation of the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting program (MIECHV). The

program facilitates collaboration and partnership at the federal, state, and community levels

to improve health and development outcomes for at-risk children through evidence-based

home visiting programs.

MEDICAL NEGLECT: A type of maltreatment caused by failure of the caregiver to provide

for the appropriate health care of the child although nancially able to do so, or offered

nancial or other resources to do so.

MEDICAL PERSONNEL: People employed by a medical facility or practice. This includes

physicians, physician assistants, nurses, emergency medical technicians, dentists, chiroprac-

tors, coroners, and dental assistants and technicians.

MENTAL HEALTH PERSONNEL: People employed by a mental health facility or prac-

tice, including psychologists, psychiatrists, clinicians, and therapists.

Appendix B: Glossary 120

Child Maltreatment 2022

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES: Activities that aim to overcome issues involving emo-

tional disturbance or maladaptive behavior adversely affecting socialization, learning, or

development. Usually provided by public or private mental health agencies and includes both

residential and nonresidential activities.

MILITARY FAMILY MEMBER: A legal dependent of a person on active duty in the Armed

Services of the United States such as the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, or Coast

Guard.

MILITARY MEMBER: A person on active duty in the Armed Services of the United States

such as the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, or Coast Guard.

NATIONAL CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT DATA SYSTEM (NCANDS): A national

data collection system of child abuse and neglect data from CPS agencies. Contains case-

level and aggregate data.

NATIONAL YOUTH IN TRANSITION DATABASE (NYTD): Public Law 106–169 estab-

lished the John H. Chafee Foster Care Independence Program (CFCIP), which provides states

with exible funding to assist youth with transitioning from foster care to self-sufciency.

The law required a data collection system to track the independent living services states

provide to youth and outcome measures to assess states’ performance in operating their inde-

pendent living programs. The National Youth in Transition Database (NYTD) requires states

engage in two data collection activities: (1) to collect information on each youth who receives

independent living services paid for or provided by the state agency that administers the

CFCIP; and (2) to collect demographic and outcome information on certain youth in foster

care whom the state will follow over time to collect additional outcome information. States

begin collecting data for NYTD on October 1, 2010 and report data to ACF semiannually.

NATIVE HAWAIIAN OR OTHER PACIFIC ISLANDER: A person having origins in any

of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacic Islands.

NEGLECT OR DEPRIVATION OF NECESSITIES: A type of maltreatment that refers to

the failure by the caregiver to provide needed, age-appropriate care although nancially able

to do so or offered nancial or other means to do so.

NEIGHBOR: A person living in close geographical proximity to the child or family.

NO ALLEGED MALTREATMENT: A child who received a CPS response, but was not the

subject of an allegation or any nding of maltreatment. Some states have laws requiring all

children in a household receive a CPS response, if any child in the household is the subject of

a CPS response.

NONCAREGIVER: A person who is not responsible for the care and supervision of the

child, including school personnel, friends, and neighbors.

NONPARENT: A person in a caregiver role other than an adoptive parent, biological parent,

or stepparent.

Appendix B: Glossary 121

Child Maltreatment 2022

NONVICTIM: A child with a maltreatment disposition of alternative response nonvictim,

alternative response victim, unsubstantiated, closed with no nding, no alleged maltreatment,

other, and unknown.

NONPROFESSIONAL REPORT SOURCE: Persons who did not have a relationship

with the child based on their occupation, such as friends, relatives, and neighbors. State laws

vary as to whether nonprofessionals are required to report suspected abuse and neglect.

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET (OMB): The ofce assists the President

of the United States with overseeing the preparation of the federal budget and supervising

its administration in Executive Branch agencies. It evaluates the effectiveness of agency

programs, policies, and procedures, assesses competing funding demands among agencies,

and sets funding priorities.

OTHER: The state coding for this eld is not one of the codes in the NCANDS record

layout.

OTHER RELATIVE: A nonparental family member.

OTHER MEDICAL CONDITION: A type of disability other than one of those dened in

NCANDS (i.e. behavior problem, emotional disturbance, learning disability, intellectual

disability, physically disabled, and visually or hearing impaired). The not otherwise classi-

ed disability must affect functioning or development or require special medical care (e.g.

chronic illnesses). This risk factor may be applied to a caregiver or a child.

OTHER PROFESSIONAL: A perpetrator relationship where the relationship with the child

is part of the perpetrator’s occupation and is not one of the existing codes in the NCANDS

record layout. Examples include clergy member, court staff, counselor, camp employee,

doctor, EMS/EMG, teacher, sports coach, service provider, other school personnel, etc.

OUT-OF-COURT CONTACT: A meeting, which is not part of the actual judicial hearing,

between the court-appointed representative and the child victim. Such contacts enable the

court-appointed representative to obtain a rst-hand understanding of the situation and needs

of the child victim and to make recommendations to the court concerning the best interests

of the child.

PA RENT: The birth mother or father, adoptive mother or father, or stepmother or stepfather

of a child.

PART C: A section in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004

(IDEA) for infants and toddlers younger than 3 years with disabilities.

PERPETRATOR: The person who has been determined to have caused or knowingly

allowed the maltreatment of a child.

PERPETRATOR AGE: Age of an individual determined to have caused or knowingly

allowed the maltreatment of a child. Age is calculated in years at the time of the report of

child maltreatment.

Appendix B: Glossary 122

Child Maltreatment 2022

PERPETRATOR AS CAREGIVER: Circumstances whereby the person who caused or

knowingly allowed child maltreatment to occur was also responsible for care and supervision

of the victim when the maltreatment occurred.

PERPETRATOR IDENTIFIER (Perpetrator ID): A unique, encrypted identication

assigned to each perpetrator by the state for the purposes of the NCANDS data collection.

PERPETRATOR RELATIONSHIP: Primary role of the perpetrator to a child victim.

PETITION DATE: The month, day, and year that a juvenile court petition was led.

PLAN OF SAFE CARE: A plan developed as described in CAPTA sections 106(b)(2)(B)(iii)

for infants born and identied as being affected by substance abuse or withdrawal symptoms,

or Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder. The state plan section at 106(b)(2)(B)(iii) requires that a

plan of safe care addresses the health and substance use disorder treatment needs of the infant

and affected family or caregiver. The plan of safe care may be created at any point during an

investigation or assessment. This is not considered an NCANDS service eld.

PHYSICAL ABUSE: Type of maltreatment that refers to physical acts that caused or could

have caused physical injury to a child.

PHYSICAL DISABILITY: A clinically diagnosed physical condition that adversely affects

day-to-day motor functioning, such as cerebral palsy, spina bida, multiple sclerosis,

orthopedic impairments, and other physical disabilities. This risk factor can be applied to a

caregiver or a child.

POSTRESPONSE SERVICES (also known as Postinvestigation Services):

Activities provided or arranged by the child protective services agency, social services

agency, or the child welfare agency for the child or family as a result of needs discovered

during an investigation. Includes such services as family preservation, family support, and

foster care. Postresponse services are delivered within the rst 90 days after the disposition

of the report.

PREVENTION SERVICES: Activities aimed at preventing child abuse and neglect. Such

activities may be directed at specic populations identied as being at increased risk of

becoming abusive and maybe designed to increase the strength and stability of families,

to increase parents’ condence and competence in their parenting abilities, and to afford

children a stable and supportive environment. They include child abuse and neglect preven-

tive services provided through federal, state, and local funds. These prevention activities do

not include public awareness campaigns.

PRIOR CHILD VICTIM: A child victim with previous substantiated or indicated reports of

maltreatment.

PRIOR PERPETRATOR: A perpetrator with a previous determination in the state’s

information system that he or she had caused or knowingly allowed child maltreatment to

occur. “Previous” is dened as a determination that took place prior to the disposition date of

the report being included in the dataset.

Appendix B: Glossary 123

Child Maltreatment 2022

PROFESSIONAL REPORT SOURCE: Persons who encountered the child as part of their

occupation, such as child daycare providers, educators, legal law enforcement personnel, and

medical personnel. State laws require most professionals to notify CPS agencies of suspected

maltreatment.

PROMOTING SAFE AND STABLE FAMILIES: Program that provides grants to the

states under Section 430, title IV–B, subpart 2 of the Social Security Act, as amended, to

develop and expand four types of services—community-based family support services;

innovative child welfare services, including family preservation services; time-limited

reunication services; and adoption promotion and support services.

PSYCHOLOGICAL OR EMOTIONAL MALTREATMENT: Acts or omissions—other

than physical abuse or sexual abuse—that caused or could have caused—conduct, cognitive,

affective, or other behavioral or mental disorders. Frequently occurs as verbal abuse or exces-

sive demands on a child’s performance.

PUBLIC ASSISTANCE: A risk factor related the family’s participation in social services

programs, including Temporary Assistance for Needy Families; General Assistance;

Medicaid; Social Security Income; Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women,

Infants, and Children (WIC); etc.

RACE: The primary taxonomic category of which the individual identies himself or herself

as a member, or of which the parent identies the child as a member. See AMERICAN

INDIAN OR ALASKA NATIVE, ASIAN, BLACK OR AFRICAN-AMERICAN, NATIVE

HAWAIIAN OR OTHER PACIFIC ISLANDER, WHITE, and UNKNOWN. Also, see

HISPA N IC.

RECEIPT OF REPORT: The log-in of a referral to the agency alleging child maltreatment.

REFERRAL: Notication to the CPS agency of suspected child maltreatment. This can

include more than one child.

REFERRAL TO APPROPRIATE SERVICES: As described in CAPTA sections 106(b)(2)

(B)(iii), this eld indicates whether the infant with prenatal substance exposure has a referral

to appropriate services, including services for the affected family or caregiver. According to

Administration for Children and Families, the denition of “appropriate services” is deter-

mined by each state. This is not considered an NCANDS service eld.

RELATIVE: A person connected to the child by adoption, blood, or marriage.

REMOVAL DATE: The month, day, and year that the child was removed from his or her

normal place of residence to a substitute care setting by a CPS agency during or as a result of

the CPS response. If a child has been removed more than once, the removal date is the rst

removal resulting from the CPS response.

REMOVED FROM HOME: The removal of the child from his or her normal place of residence

to a foster care setting.

Appendix B: Glossary 124

Child Maltreatment 2022

REPORT: A screened-in referral alleging child maltreatment. A report receives a CPS

response in the form of an investigation response or an alternative response.

REPORT-CHILD PAIR: Refers to the concatenation of the Report ID and the Child ID,

which together form a new unique ID that represents a single unique record in the Child File.

REPORT DATE: The day, month, and year that the responsible agency was notied of the

suspected child maltreatment.

REPORT DISPOSITION: The point in time at the end of the investigation or assessment

when a CPS worker makes a nal determination (disposition) about whether the alleged

maltreatment occurred.

REPORT DISPOSITION DATE: The day, month, and year that the report disposition was

made.

REPORT IDENTIFIER (Report ID): A unique identication assigned to each report of

child maltreatment for the purposes of the NCANDS data collection.

REPORT SOURCE: The category or role of the person who noties a CPS agency of

alleged child maltreatment.

REPORTING PERIOD: The 12-month period for which data is submitted to the NCANDS.

RESIDENTIAL FACILITY STAFF: Employees of a public or private group residential

facility, including emergency shelters, group homes, and institutions.

RESPONSE TIME FROM REFERRAL TO INVESTIGATION OR ALTERNATIVE

RESPONSE: The response time is dened as the time between the receipt of a call to the

state or local agency alleging maltreatment and face-to-face contact with the alleged victim,

wherever this is appropriate, or with another person who can provide information on the

allegation(s).

RESPONSE TIME FROM REFERRAL TO THE PROVISION OF SERVICES: The

time from the receipt of a referral to the state or local agency alleging child maltreatment to the

provision of post response services, often requiring the opening of a case for ongoing services.

SCREENED-IN REFERRAL: An allegation of child maltreatment that met the state’s

standards for acceptance and became a report.

SCREENED-OUT REFERRAL: An allegation of child maltreatment that did not meet the

state’s standards for acceptance.

SCREENING: Agency hotline or intake units conduct the screening process to determine

whether a referral is appropriate for further action. Referrals that do not meet agency criteria

are screened-out or diverted from CPS to other community agencies. In most states, a refer-

ral may include more than one child.

Appendix B: Glossary 125

Child Maltreatment 2022

SERVICE DATE: The date activities began as a result of needs discovered during the CPS

response.

SERVICES: See POSTRESPONSE SERVICES and PREVENTION SERVICES.

SEXUAL ABUSE: A type of maltreatment that refers to the involvement of the child in

sexual activity to provide sexual gratication or nancial benet to the perpetrator, including

contacts for sexual purposes, molestation, statutory rape, prostitution, pornography, expo-

sure, incest, or other sexually exploitative activities.

SEX TRAFFICKING: A type of maltreatment that refers to the recruitment, harboring,

transportation, provision, or obtaining of a person for the purpose of a commercial sex act.

States have the option to report to NCANDS any sex trafcking victim who is younger than

24 years.

SOCIAL SERVICES BLOCK GRANT (SSBG): Funds provided by title XX of the Social

Security Act that are used for services to the states that may include child protection, child

and foster care services, and daycare.

SOCIAL SERVICES PERSONNEL: Employees of a public or private social services or

social welfare agency, or other social worker or counselor who provides similar services.

STATE: In NCANDS, the primary unit from which child maltreatment data is collected.

This includes all 50 states, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia.

STATE CONTACT PERSON: The state person with the responsibility to provide informa-

tion to the NCANDS.

STEPPARENT: The husband or wife, by a subsequent marriage, of the child’s mother or

father.

SUBSTANCE ABUSE SERVICES: Activities designed to deter, reduce, or eliminate

substance abuse or chemical dependency.

SUBSTANTIATED: An investigation disposition that concludes that the allegation of

maltreatment or risk of maltreatment was supported or founded by state law or policy.

SUMMARY DATA COMPONENT (SDC): The aggregate data collection form submitted

by states that do not submit the Child File. This form was discontinued for the FFY 2012 data

collection.

TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY FAMILIES (TANF): A block grant that is

administered by state, territorial, and tribal agencies. Citizens can apply for TANF at the

respective agency administering the program in their community.

UNIQUE COUNT OF CHILDREN: Counting a child once, regardless of the number of

reports concerning that child, who received a CPS response in the FFY.

Appendix B: Glossary 126

Child Maltreatment 2022

UNIQUE COUNT OF PERPETRATORS: Counting a perpetrator once, regardless of the

number of children the perpetrator is associated with maltreating or the number of records

associated with a perpetrator.

UNKNOWN: The state may collect data on this variable, but the data for this particular

report or child were not captured or are missing.

UNMARRIED PARTNER OF PARENT: Someone who has an intimate relationship with

the parent and lives in the household with the parent of the maltreated child.

UNSUBSTANTIATED: An investigation disposition that determines that there was not

sufcient evidence under state law to conclude or suspect that the child was maltreated or

was at -risk of being maltreated.

VISUAL OR HEARING IMPAIRMENT: A clinically diagnosed condition related to a

visual impairment or permanent or uctuating hearing or speech impairment that may affect

functioning or development. This term can be applied to a caregiver or a child.

VICTIM: A child for whom the state determined at least one maltreatment was substantiated

or indicated; and a disposition of substantiated or indicated was assigned for a child in a

specic report. This includes a child who died and the death was conrmed to be the result

of child abuse and neglect. A child may be a victim in one report and a nonvictim in another

report.

WHITE: A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East,

or North Africa. Race may be self-identied or identied by a caregiver.

WORKER IDENTIFIER (WORKER ID): A unique identication of the worker who is

assigned to the child at the time of the report disposition.

WORKFORCE: Total number of workers in a CPS agency.

Appendix B: Glossary 127

Child Maltreatment 2022

State Characteristics

Administrative Structure

States vary in how they administer and deliver child welfare services. Forty states (including

the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico) have a centralized system

classied as state administered. Ten states are classied as state supervised, county admin-

istered; and two states are classied as “hybrid” meaning they are partially administered

by the state and partially administered by counties. Each state’s administrative structure (as

submitted by the state as part of Appendix D, State Commentary) is provided in table C–1.

Level of Evidence

States use a certain level of evidence to determine whether maltreatment occurred or the

child is at-risk of maltreatment. Level of evidence is dened as the proof required to make

a specic nding or disposition regarding an allegation of child abuse and neglect. Each

state’s level of evidence (as submitted by each state as part of commentary in appendix D) is

provided in table C–1.

Data Submissions

States submit case-level data by constructing an electronic le of child-specic records for

each report of alleged child abuse and neglect that received a CPS response. Each state’s

submission includes only completed reports that resulted in a disposition (or nding) as an

outcome of the CPS response during the reporting year. The data submission containing these

case-level data is called the Child File.

The Child File is supplemented by agency-level aggregate statistics in a separate data submis-

sion called the Agency File. The Agency File contains data that are not reportable at the

child-specic level and often gathered from agencies external to CPS. States are asked to

submit both the Child File and the Agency File each year. For FFY 2022, 52 states submitted

both a Child File and an Agency File.

Once validated, the Child Files and Agency Files are loaded into the multiyear, multistate

NCANDS Data Warehouse. The FFY 2022 dataset is available to researchers from the

National Data Archive on Child Abuse and neglect (NDACAN).

APPENDIX C

Appendix C: State Characteristics 128

Child Maltreatment 2022

Child Population Data

The child population data for years 2018–2022 is displayed by state in table C–2. The

2022 child population data for the demographics of age, sex, and race and ethnicity is

displayed by state in table C–3. The adult population is displayed in table C–4.

Appendix C: State Characteristics 129

Child Maltreatment 2022

Table C–1 State Administrative Structure, Level of Evidence, and Data Files

Submitted, 2022

State Hybrid

State

Administered

State

Supervised,

County

Administered Credible Preponderance

Probable

Cause Reasonable

Agency File and

Child File

Alabama - 1 - - 1 - - 1

Alaska - 1 - - 1 - - 1

Arizona - 1 - - - 1 - 1

Arkansas - 1 - - 1 - - 1

California - - 1 - 1 - - 1

Colorado - - 1 - 1 - - 1

Connecticut - 1 - - - - 1 1

Delaware - 1 - - 1 - - 1

District of Columbia - 1 - 1 - - - 1

Florida - 1 - - 1 - - 1

Georgia - 1 - - 1 - - 1

Hawaii - 1 - - - - 1 1

Idaho - 1 - - 1 - -

Illinois - 1 - 1 - - -

Indiana - 1 - - 1 - - 1

Iowa - 1 - - 1 - - 1

Kansas - 1 - - 1 - - 1

Kentucky - 1 - - 1 - - 1

Louisiana - 1 - - - - 1 1

Maine - 1 - - 1 - - 1

Maryland - 1 - - 1 - - 1

Massachusetts - 1 - - - - 1 1

Michigan - 1 - - 1 - - 1

Minnesota - - 1 - 1 - - 1

Mississippi - 1 - 1 - - - 1

Missouri - 1 - - 1 - - 1

Montana - 1 - - 1 - - 1

Nebraska - 1 - - 1 -

- 1

Nevada 1 - - - 1 -

- 1

New Hampshire - 1 - - 1 - - 1

New Jersey - 1 - - 1 - - 1

New Mexico - 1 - 1 - - - 1

New York - - 1 - 1 - - 1

North Carolina - - 1 - 1 - - 1

North Dakota - - 1 - 1 - - 1

Ohio - - 1 1 - - - 1

Oklahoma - 1 - 1 - - - 1

Oregon - 1 - - - - 1 1

Pennsylvania - - 1 - 1 - - 1

Puerto Rico - 1 - - 1 - - 1

Rhode Island - 1 - - 1 - - 1

South Carolina - 1 - - 1 - - 1

South Dakota - 1 - - 1

- - 1

Tennessee - 1 - - 1

- - 1

Texas - 1 - - 1 - - 1

Utah - 1 - - - - 1 1

Vermont - 1 - - - - 1 1

Virginia - - 1 - 1 - - 1

Washington - 1 - - 1 - - 1

West Virginia - 1 - - 1 - - 1

Wisconsin 1 - - - 1 - - 1

Wyoming - - 1 - 1 - - 1

States Reporting 2 40 10 6 38 1 7 52

Note: Level of evidence is listed in alphabetical order.

Appendix C: State Characteristics 130

Child Maltreatment 2022

Table C–2 Child Population, 2018–2022

State 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Alabama 1,092,599 1,088,727 1,111,214 1,110,087 1,111,562

Alaska 183,189 180,442 179,073 177,739 176,523

Arizona 1,638,657 1,641,727 1,595,098 1,592,435 1,589,010

Arkansas 703,626 701,317 696,663 695,680 697,119

California 8,974,477 8,881,104 8,818,239 8,652,868 8,506,027

Colorado 1,264,226 1,256,673 1,246,974 1,232,116 1,215,575

Connecticut 736,061 727,280 743,209 735,582 731,030

Delaware 204,154 204,263 206,791 206,703 208,127

District of Columbia 126,703 127,952 125,248 123,996 124,475

Florida 4,226,134 4,233,967 4,229,720 4,234,511 4,296,354

Georgia 2,509,456 2,505,399 2,515,174 2,505,369 2,510,123

Hawaii 303,049 299,419 306,640 301,536 297,326

Idaho 445,134 448,116 453,179 460,778 463,404

Illinois 2,857,349 2,817,312 2,831,998 2,775,737 2,720,131

Indiana 1,572,404 1,569,375 1,580,111 1,573,388 1,569,923

Iowa 729,802 728,005 732,396 727,981 724,489

Kansas 706,593 701,453 702,969 695,904 690,832

Kentucky 1,008,017 1,004,268 1,011,281 1,007,420 1,004,575

Louisiana 1,098,318 1,089,906 1,086,208 1,074,840 1,061,693

Maine 250,465 249,610 251,067 249,306 247,898

Maryland 1,341,430 1,338,232 1,366,422 1,354,373 1,346,589

Massachusetts 1,365,956

1,353,615 1,372,918 1,350,968 1,337,434

Michigan 2,163,590 2,144,307 2,154,460 2,130,448 2,109,695

Minnesota 1,303,090 1,303,212 1,314,083 1,302,973 1,294,162

Mississippi 707,663 699,984 690,717 684,333 678,061

Missouri 1,379,108 1,374,703 1,375,337 1,369,735 1,364,908

Montana 229,210 228,888 231,291 232,568 233,753

Nebraska 476,581 476,033 482,095 478,986 476,677

Nevada 688,989 694,730 693,062 690,856 689,778

New Hampshire 258,045 255,785 256,250 254,597 252,924

New Jersey 1,954,045 1,943,575 2,026,114 2,006,286 1,994,109

New Mexico 482,442 477,209 476,375 467,455 459,513

New York 4,074,414 4,031,894 4,168,699 4,069,680 3,989,288

North Carolina 2,304,529 2,304,554 2,281,275 2,281,611 2,294,879

North Dakota 178,524 180,584 184,438 183,162 182,775

Ohio 2,595,584 2,581,403 2,599,462 2,580,179 2,562,550

Oklahoma 955,996 953,923 949,504 950,246 953,146

Oregon 868,879 864,815 862,084 851,011 836,988

Pennsylvania 2,653,058 2,635,819 2,672,072 2,648,608 2,624,465

Puerto Rico 591,875 572,801 566,375 544,770 518,339

Rhode Island 206,059 203,923 209,450 206,453 203,912

South Carolina 1,108,588 1,113,673 1,101,228 1,105,504 1,117,872

South Dakota 216,722 217,817 216,814 217,484 219,165

Tennessee 1,510,375 1,510,976 1,525,952

1,528,425 1,538,137

Texas 7,382,686 7,406,777 7,404,862 7,401,483 7,456,338

Utah 930,162 929,940 938,051 936,962 931,608

Vermont 115,630 114,325 117,118 115,868 114,757

Virginia 1,870,042 1,868,689 1,883,392 1,871,848 1,866,910

Washington 1,657,823 1,661,024 1,675,164 1,660,819 1,646,573

West Virginia 365,119 360,439 358,327 354,931 351,922

Wisconsin 1,276,066 1,267,935 1,273,285 1,258,867 1,245,629

Wyoming 134,683 133,577 132,639 131,341 130,114

National 73,977,376 73,661,476 73,982,567 73,356,806 72,969,166

States Reporting 52 52 52 52 52

Note: Arizona did not submit FFY 2021 NCANDS data; however, the state’s population data is presented in this appendix.

Appendix C: State Characteristics 131

Child Maltreatment 2022

Table C–3 Child Population Demographics, 2022 (continues next page)

State

<1 1 2

3 4 5 6 7 8

Alabama

57,882 57,185 57,342

58,047 59,843 60,337 61,461 61,795 61,106

Alaska

9,490 9,266 9,338

9,203 9,508 9,951 10,085 10,090 10,186

Arizona

78,579 75,953 78,226

80,157 82,091 84,356 87,197 89,225 89,233

Arkansas

35,980 35,287 35,602

36,347 37,173 37,782 38,704 38,801 38,417

California

425,149 407,106 423,040

430,701 441,768 458,025 469,417 476,874 476,454

Colorado

62,867 61,287 61,203

61,031 62,632 64,383 66,584 67,216 67,207

Connecticut

35,870 34,725 36,348

36,903 37,761 38,212 39,099 39,572 39,630

Delaware

10,785 10,421 10,725

10,794 11,041 11,165 11,454 11,524 11,464

District of Columbia

8,261 8,124 7,494

7,486 7,734 7,692 7,573 7,526 7,117

Florida

220,782 213,207 219,121

224,408 229,286 232,262 238,298 239,209 238,908

Georgia

124,954 122,903 125,429

127,431 130,828 133,350 136,735 138,395 137,873

Hawaii

15,804 15,287 15,743

16,255 16,511 16,980 17,313 17,295 17,450

Idaho

22,368 22,135 22,592

22,726 23,462 24,512 25,669 26,072 25,808

Illinois

131,093 130,551 136,510

139,036 143,151 146,312 150,336 151,512 149,730

Indiana

79,786 77,980 81,262

81,942 83,976 84,475 86,914 87,677 87,268

Iowa

36,786 36,147 37,262

37,402 38,603 39,256 40,172 40,525 40,398

Kansas

34,772 34,179 35,015

35,368 36,108 37,020 38,127 38,410 38,574

Kentucky

52,123 51,365 52,204

52,954 54,067 54,574 55,553 55,855 55,996

Louisiana

56,702 55,854 54,832

55,523 57,109 58,172 59,890 59,795 59,402

Maine

12,002 11,642 12,599

12,727 12,774 13,052 13,512 13,633 13,686

Maryland

69,158 67,332 70,272

70,858 72,224 73,063 74,661 74,849 74,531

Massachusetts

70,623 66,626 68,018

68,261 70,068 71,067 72,213 73,018 73,217

Michigan

104,605 102,891 108,177

109,024 111,728 113,892 116,449 117,437 117,389

Minnesota

64,755 63,318 66,458

67,078 68,517 70,536 72,313 72,952 72,837

Mississippi

34,735 34,572 34,545

35,011 35,655 35,589 36,300 36,573 36,526

Missouri

69,009 68,695 71,059

71,786 73,056 73,805 75,185

75,841 75,739

Montana

11,201 11,036 11,589

11,745 12,075 12,646 13,274 13,417 13,270

Nebraska

24,347 24,145 24,720

25,044 25,581 26,163 26,904 26,959 26,905

Nevada

33,611 33,672 34,944

35,787 36,230 37,107 38,574 38,774 38,435

New Hampshire

12,713 12,272 12,550

12,657 12,752 13,152 13,466 13,683 13,762

New Jersey

102,910 98,851 103,206

104,719 106,769 107,742 109,428 109,728 109,400

New Mexico

20,830 21,207 21,855

22,739 23,397 23,886 24,865 25,532 25,618

New York

214,746 201,750 211,104

214,218 217,399 218,902 221,434 222,892 220,938

North Carolina

121,554 117,878 117,750

118,542 120,766 122,446 124,831 126,027 125,460

North Dakota

10,093 9,824 9,920

9,932 10,160 10,485 10,766 10,655 10,440

Ohio

128,822 128,268 132,681

134,077 137,573 138,892 141,863 142,996 142,906

Oklahoma

47,793 47,556 48,509

49,315 50,498 51,749 53,470 53,687 53,958

Oregon

41,052 39,419 41,123

41,539 42,941 44,373 46,319 47,071 47,306

Pennsylvania

131,552 130,017 134,616

135,996 139,024 140,977 144,122 145,746 145,973

Puerto Rico

19,337

18,240 19,695

21,055 21,232 23,046 25,496 27,427 29,138

Rhode Island

10,532 9,969 10,545

10,736 10,918 11,070 11,359 11,287 11,169

South Carolina

56,849 56,543 56,731

57,129 58,631 59,217 60,948 61,819 61,686

South Dakota

11,445 11,184 11,663

11,793 12,008 12,168 12,375 12,269 12,335

Tennessee

81,460 79,643 80,447

81,111 82,760 82,754 84,802 85,017 84,524

Texas

378,682 370,760 376,841

383,360 392,996 404,723 419,724 423,784 421,340

Utah

46,679 45,123 46,928

46,864 47,480 49,183 51,203 51,874 51,994

Vermont

5,364 5,201 5,537

5,672 5,820 6,053 6,276 6,383 6,462

Virginia

96,728 94,430 96,943

98,575 100,817 101,327 104,140 104,002 103,241

Washington

84,431 82,628 85,637

85,464 87,669 90,933 93,251 93,193 92,578

West Virginia

17,376 17,331 17,590

17,616 18,084 18,308 18,959 19,471 19,816

Wisconsin

61,278 59,985 63,254

63,448 64,657 66,356 68,106 68,554 68,429

Wyoming

6,145 6,087 6,263

6,299 6,546 6,866 7,225 7,238 7,250

National

3,702,450 3,607,057 3,713,057

3,763,891 3,851,457

3,930,344 4,034,394 4,071,156 4,060,479

Reporting States

52 52 52

52 52 52 52 52 52

Appendix C: State Characteristics 132

Child Maltreatment 2022

Table C–3 Child Population Demographics, 2022 (continues next page)

State

9 10 11

12 13 14 15 16 17

Alabama 60,574 60,929 61,557 63,172 65,086 67,703 67,299 65,600 64,644

Alaska 10,192 10,068 10,137 10,016 10,039 10,027 9,844 9,549 9,534

Arizona 88,585 88,533 89,383 91,496 94,654 98,846 99,118 97,254 96,124

Arkansas 38,220 38,462 38,755 39,660 40,711 42,455 42,426 41,519 40,818

California 477,398 478,124 485,870 491,255 499,146 521,730 521,347 513,196 509,427

Colorado 66,703 67,209 68,629 70,774 71,921 74,487 74,510 73,653 73,279

Connecticut 39,824 40,256 41,334 42,279 43,709 45,883 46,483 46,292 46,850

Delaware 11,453 11,718 11,806 11,957 12,171 12,597 12,496 12,420 12,136

District of Columbia 7,151 7,014 6,717 6,197 5,994 5,889 5,740 5,461 5,305

Florida 237,283 238,004 240,410 244,105 249,272 260,073 260,758 257,383 253,585

Georgia 137,836 139,682 141,864 145,037 149,485 156,503 156,520 153,616 151,682

Hawaii 17,544 17,364 17,107 16,521 16,196 16,587 16,095 15,695 15,579

Idaho 25,931 25,873 26,301

27,435 28,027 29,107 28,987 28,336 28,063

Illinois 149,210 150,798 153,377 157,591 161,052 167,802 168,248 166,608 167,214

Indiana 87,074 87,164 87,304 89,399 91,589 94,992 94,943 93,335 92,843

Iowa 39,970 39,584 39,665 41,414 42,822 44,266 44,186 43,423 42,608

Kansas 38,733 38,804 39,256 40,292 40,841 41,994 41,855 41,007 40,477

Kentucky 55,687 55,429 55,412 56,597 58,224 60,423 60,381 59,123 58,608

Louisiana 58,259 57,960 58,168 59,459 61,342 63,802 63,537 61,519 60,368

Maine 13,682 13,612 13,737 14,390 14,792 15,377 15,588 15,477 15,616

Maryland 74,313 74,682 76,009 77,063 78,203 81,266 80,706 79,062 78,337

Massachusetts 73,423 74,086 74,962 76,486 77,791 80,937 81,849 81,732 83,057

Michigan 116,571 116,665 117,820 121,011 123,279 127,960 128,719 127,945 128,133

Minnesota 72,351 72,228 72,286 74,047 75,727 78,167 77,951 76,613 76,028

Mississippi 36,362 36,976 37,378 38,637 40,639 42,986 43,408 41,631 40,538

Missouri 75,187 75,296 76,118 77,639 79,728 82,679 82,489

81,398 80,199

Montana 13,194 13,302 13,234 13,474 13,891 14,380 14,294 14,058 13,673

Nebraska 26,551 26,269 26,438 27,107 27,776 28,429 28,205 27,660 27,474

Nevada 38,348 38,489 39,364 39,749 40,706 42,509 42,337 41,087 40,055

New Hampshire 13,995 13,987 14,400 14,624 15,006 15,760 15,943 16,079 16,123

New Jersey 109,451 110,412 112,316 114,071 115,895 120,254 120,648 119,172 119,137

New Mexico 25,910 26,069 26,588 27,464 28,169 29,210 29,122 28,601 28,451

New York 221,418 222,169 224,197 224,586 225,178 232,368 232,158 231,121 232,710

North Carolina 125,019 125,824 127,187 131,294 135,405 140,606 140,274 137,880 136,136

North Dakota 10,312 10,221 9,905 10,008 10,058 10,304 10,151 9,917 9,624

Ohio 142,627 141,702 141,689 145,132 149,198 154,506 154,665 152,944 152,009

Oklahoma 53,964 53,778 53,713 54,700 55,720 57,494 56,988 55,509 54,745

Oregon 46,972 47,349 47,851 49,047 50,088 52,173 51,667 50,671 50,027

Pennsylvania 145,651 146,052 147,307 150,293 153,629 159,245 159,090 157,601 157,574

Puerto Rico 30,590

31,905 32,804 34,407 35,236 35,733 36,840 37,871 38,287

Rhode Island 11,114 11,136 11,219 11,393 11,662 12,261 12,342 12,528 12,672

South Carolina 61,235 61,765 62,509 64,834 67,201 69,378 69,210 66,958 65,229

South Dakota 12,233 12,161 12,175 12,443 12,606 12,923 12,804 12,420 12,160

Tennessee 84,219 84,452 84,297 86,520 89,410 93,357 92,843 90,995 89,526

Texas 416,286 413,163 419,340 429,979 437,182 450,643 446,877 437,879 432,779

Utah 52,131 51,715 52,683 54,610 55,896 57,839 57,658 56,386 55,362

Vermont 6,405 6,509 6,599 6,668 6,829 7,197 7,269 7,232 7,281

Virginia 103,094 103,479 104,447 105,515 107,629 112,066 111,837 109,834 108,806

Washington 92,513 91,955 92,656 94,454 95,813 98,200 97,175 94,570 93,453

West Virginia 19,985 19,894 19,936 20,410 20,948 21,772 21,762 21,398 21,266

Wisconsin 68,471 68,934 69,750 72,743 74,505 77,357 77,513 76,411 75,878

Wyoming 7,315 7,241 7,402 7,764 8,044 8,264 8,251 8,050 7,864

National

4,048,519 4,056,452 4,101,368

4,187,218 4,276,120

4,438,766 4,433,406 4,363,679 4,329,353

Reporting States

52 52 52

52 52 52 52 52 52

Appendix C: State Characteristics 133

Child Maltreatment 2022

Table C–3 Child Population Demographics, 2022

State

Boy Girl

American

Indian

or Alaska

Native

Asian

Black or

African-

American Hispanic

Native

Hawaiian or

Other Pacic

Islander

Two or More

Races White

Alabama 567,219 544,343 3,918 16,398 321,268 97,028 630 41,970 630,350

Alaska 90,546 85,977 32,210 9,910 5,104 18,794 4,261 24,376 81,868

Arizona 811,998 777,012 71,099 48,994 85,467 713,117 3,043 70,441 596,849

Arkansas 357,251 339,868 4,896 12,882 123,423 92,500 4,981 29,314 429,123

California 4,356,524 4,149,503 30,371 1,100,745 424,411 4,412,585 30,139 460,558 2,047,218

Colorado 622,562 593,013 6,518 43,292 55,001 398,760 2,380 59,041 650,583

Connecticut 372,647 358,383 2,045 39,610 86,746 200,353 358 30,086 371,832

Delaware 105,894 102,233 464 9,296 54,234 36,873 89 12,321 94,850

District of Columbia 63,302 61,173 172 3,121 64,167 22,028 51 5,657 29,279

Florida 2,196,698 2,099,656 8,737 122,697 843,533 1,374,388 3,090 173,375 1,770,534

Georgia 1,279,930 1,230,193 4,439 112,285 853,849 384,238 2,331 105,430

1,047,551

Hawaii 153,246 144,080 412 64,516 5,044 58,381 33,374 95,091 40,508

Idaho 237,673 225,731 4,295

5,926 4,185 90,808 855 17,497 339,838

Illinois 1,390,234 1,329,897 3,766 155,327 419,638 676,284 784 102,630 1,361,702

Indiana 804,957 764,966 2,473 45,959 184,225 190,519 775 70,981 1,074,991

Iowa 370,986 353,503 2,475 19,986 42,906 80,905 2,366 31,081 544,770

Kansas 354,059 336,773 4,339 20,068 42,750 134,466 1,005 38,430 449,774

Kentucky 515,304 489,271 1,272 19,556 94,426 71,573 1,073 46,514 770,161

Louisiana 541,968 519,725 6,033 17,968 383,080 87,937 361 36,138 530,176

Maine 127,239 120,659 1,870 3,436 8,612 8,511 102 10,025 215,342

Maryland 687,670 658,919 2,616 88,368 412,016 238,427 542 74,533 530,087

Massachusetts 684,334 653,100 2,391 106,561 124,718 272,695 748 58,375 771,946

Michigan 1,081,733 1,027,962 11,407 75,022 344,539 188,107 644 108,534 1,381,442

Minnesota 662,115 632,047 17,683 85,772 143,885 122,338 1,134 69,459 853,891

Mississippi 345,018 333,043

3,908 7,026 279,192 36,926 223 19,447 331,339

Missouri 700,792 664,116 4,658 28,984 183,200 103,102 3,085

69,497 972,382

Montana 120,246 113,507 20,953 2,101 1,433 17,102 217 11,418 180,529

Nebraska 244,639 232,038 4,867 13,890 29,320 92,090 380 20,552 315,578

Nevada 353,110 336,668 4,933 44,203 78,500 287,709 5,520 51,337 217,576

New Hampshire 129,653 123,271 403 9,187 5,432 19,772 92 8,928 209,110

New Jersey 1,020,890 973,219 3,488 206,299 269,176 573,386 958 67,185 873,617

New Mexico 234,522 224,991 44,880 6,004 8,626 283,225 221 12,853 103,704

New York 2,043,317 1,945,971 12,290 358,010 588,446 1,006,380 2,070 157,452 1,864,640

North Carolina 1,171,950 1,122,929 24,440 88,422 513,645 406,491 1,901 110,338 1,149,642

North Dakota 93,400 89,375 12,676 3,282 8,746 14,018 244 8,723 135,086

Ohio 1,311,874 1,250,676 3,573 73,795 397,722 180,980 1,500 135,700 1,769,280

Oklahoma 488,022 465,124 89,212 22,283 74,831 182,695 2,895 99,663 481,567

Oregon 429,127 407,861 8,409 37,753 19,998 197,706

4,427 56,299 512,396

Pennsylvania 1,344,485 1,279,980 3,432 113,829 336,838 369,512 999 116,200 1,683,655

Puerto Rico 263,450

254,889 - - - - - - -

Rhode Island 104,270 99,642 944 7,615 15,129 59,362 156 10,069 110,637

South Carolina 569,719 548,153 3,178 21,481 319,111 120,782 832 50,191 602,297

South Dakota 112,186 106,979 25,086 3,964 7,518 18,258 273 10,964 153,102

Tennessee 786,278 751,859 2,983 31,117 285,394 170,507 1,053 65,951 981,132

Texas 3,809,464 3,646,874 17,647 368,667 937,582 3,650,284 7,016 219,065 2,256,077

Utah 479,569 452,039 7,431 18,688 11,588 180,038 11,228 37,165 665,470

Vermont 59,258 55,499 275 2,689 2,197 3,700 32 4,748 101,116

Virginia 956,943 909,967 3,789 129,028 371,635 286,896 1,213 116,093 958,256

Washington 843,855 802,718 19,756 145,920 73,460 381,199 15,122 145,899 865,217

West Virginia 180,517 171,405 478 2,770 13,067 11,025 71 16,508 308,003

Wisconsin 638,348 607,281 12,739 50,719 110,901 161,749 602 55,118 853,801

Wyoming

66,728 63,386 3,390 989 1,248 21,240 83 4,666 98,498

National 37,337,719 35,631,447 565,719 4,026,410 10,071,162

18,807,749 157,529 3,453,886 35,368,372

Reporting States 52 52 51 51 51 51 51 51 51

Appendix C: State Characteristics 134

Child Maltreatment 2022

Table C–4 Adult Population by Age Group, 2022

State 18–24 25–34 35–44 45–54 55–64 65–75 75 and Older

Alabama 492,021 657,905 621,848 617,797 658,430 540,882 373,851

Alaska 68,417 113,239 103,579 82,973 87,241 67,276 34,335

Arizona 719,560 1,018,332 926,056 851,890 871,963 780,707 601,679

Arkansas 290,231 397,098 381,818 358,703 378,312 314,714 227,642

California 3,671,979 5,747,351 5,390,648 4,870,281 4,687,309 3,560,888 2,594,859

Colorado 554,057 915,481 847,768 709,151 683,856 560,039 353,999

Connecticut 351,037 453,483 459,894 451,707 515,736 379,930 283,388

Delaware 87,585 128,230 123,537 115,577 143,496 127,275 84,569

District of Columbia 68,000 145,567 110,949 71,480 64,072 49,975 37,285

Florida 1,848,181 2,805,343 2,785,238 2,725,291 2,990,220 2,602,139 2,192,057

Georgia 1,066,375 1,511,231 1,445,295 1,397,510 1,337,315 994,257 650,770

Hawaii 120,702 190,533 191,386 168,913 176,971 162,235 132,130

Idaho 195,931 251,203 252,364 219,580 226,099 199,485 130,967

Illinois 1,169,741 1,696,752 1,667,941 1,557,864 1,606,306 1,261,263 902,034

Indiana 677,421 897,480 860,267 815,676 856,592 687,211 468,467

Iowa 328,493 398,236 402,238 359,453 401,578

337,487 248,543

Kansas 307,521 376,350 376,397 327,300 354,733 295,510 208,507

Kentucky 417,856 592,553 561,994 554,804 587,521 476,723 316,284

Louisiana 430,681 609,176 604,031 526,426 578,173 470,868 309,193

Maine 110,462 168,183 168,691 168,198 209,684 185,170 127,054

Maryland 534,403 809,165 833,654 771,708 824,932 608,281 435,928

Massachusetts 697,284 973,637 905,724 856,003 951,354 731,544 528,994

Michigan 954,220 1,318,494 1,210,540 1,202,633 1,358,196 1,123,281 757,054

Minnesota 514,740 740,688 771,968 659,534 738,560 584,717 412,815

Mississippi 291,755 376,071 363,978 351,380 371,272 302,852 204,688

Missouri 579,119 811,793 789,531 716,515 801,736 651,257 463,098

Montana 105,048 146,861 144,219 123,294 144,566 136,767 88,359

Nebraska 197,324 251,846 256,829 218,041 234,150 195,520 137,536

Nevada 264,715 459,107 438,086 397,653 391,429 322,106 214,898

New Hampshire 120,734 179,394 171,925 172,601 216,147 169,274 112,232

New Jersey 794,866 1,188,554 1,220,287 1,195,135 1,256,981 922,378 689,389

New Mexico 206,755 278,336 269,909 234,581 260,847 238,437 164,966

New York 1,803,036 2,767,531 2,533,370

2,400,391 2,619,959 2,028,832 1,534,744

North Carolina 1,038,619 1,437,479 1,351,351 1,346,958 1,367,808 1,106,578 755,301

North Dakota 89,432 109,433 100,523 78,235 88,935 74,880 55,048

Ohio 1,068,727 1,550,443 1,463,046 1,402,830 1,546,264 1,281,505 880,693

Oklahoma 406,600 541,538 524,996 457,226 475,399 388,508 272,387

Oregon 370,811 592,618 591,471 519,401 513,170 485,969 329,709

Pennsylvania 1,200,378 1,682,014 1,619,711 1,537,517 1,765,997 1,469,045 1,072,881

Puerto Rico 288,570 432,303 377,915 409,529 438,284 383,985 372,864

Rhode Island 111,927 151,442 137,963 130,073 152,007 119,463 86,947

South Carolina 494,280 680,762 651,751 633,857 696,103 604,646 403,363

South Dakota 87,029 114,295 114,374 96,313 114,831 99,880 63,937

Tennessee 644,140 976,563 892,438 872,524 906,548 729,524 491,465

Texas 3,026,333 4,337,408 4,203,606 3,676,667 3,302,167 2,438,490 1,588,563

Utah 403,891 498,913 463,662 369,405 308,121 245,876 159,324

Vermont 65,681 77,521 79,179 76,758 93,717 83,482 55,969

Virginia 823,295 1,174,486 1,167,939 1,075,904 1,110,097 858,089 606,899

Washington 677,198 1,181,605 1,109,502 930,283 932,065 784,582 523,978

West Virginia 159,635

212,994 210,862 222,858 240,786 222,956 153,143

Wisconsin 565,598 733,535 743,390 689,605 812,663 658,626 443,493

Wyoming 54,307 73,048 77,642 65,188 73,023 67,060 40,999

National 31,616,701 45,933,603 44,073,280 40,841,174 42,523,721 34,172,424 24,379,277

Reporting States 52 52 52 52 52 52 52

Appendix C: State Characteristics 135

Child Maltreatment 2022

Alabama

Contact Holly Christian Phone 334–353–4898

Title Deputy Director, Children and Family Services

Division

holly.christian@dhr.alabama.gov

Address Alabama Department of Human Resources

50 Ripley Street

Montgomery, AL 36130–4000

General

Federal scal year (FFY) 2022 is the fourteenth NCANDS submission from our

Comprehensive Child Welfare Information System (CCWIS). There were no changes in poli-

cies, programs or procedures that affected the 2022 submission of NCANDS data. Variances

in data compared to previous years may occur as we have continued work to strengthen our

data collection processes in the system. Enhancements are completed each year to continue

efforts to improve reporting of services to children and families, perpetrator data and map-

ping of NCANDS elements.

Alabama has two types of screened-in responses: child abuse and neglect investigations (CA/

Ns) and prevention assessments (alternative response). For FFY 2022, the Child File included

only CA/Ns, which have allegations of abuse or neglect. Prevention Assessments are reports

that do not include allegations of abuse/neglect, but the potential risk for abuse may exist.

A Prevention Assessment may be changed to a CA/N report if an allegation is added to the

system. At that time, policy for CA/N Investigations are in effect. The FFY 2022 submission

does not include prevention assessment data in the Child File.

Reports

The state did not change its screening protocol due to the pandemic that began in 2020. The

state has maintained the same policy and requirements for in person investigations. No poli-

cies or procedures were changed related to the screening or completion of reports.

A policy change was implemented in FFY 2017 that decreased the timeframe permitted

to complete CA/N investigations from 90 days to 60 days. The state did not modify the

State Commentary

APPENDIX D

This section provides insights into policies and conditions that may affect state data. Readers

are encouraged to use this appendix as a resource for providing additional context to the

report’s text and data tables. Wherever possible, information was provided by each NCANDS

state contact and uses state terminology.

Appendix d: State Commentary 136

Child Maltreatment 2022

timeframe requirements for investigation completions due to the pandemic for FFY 2021.

Response time, as reported in the Agency File, is taken from the calculated average response

time reported in the Child File.

During FFY 2019, the mapping for caregiver and child risk factors was modied to improve

NCANDS reporting accuracy and completeness.

During FFY 2020, mapping updates were focused around improving reporting for services

for clients. Additionally, updates were created for the service date code to successfully report

service dates within the timeframe specied by NCANDS.

During FFY 2021, coding and mapping updates were completed for child and caregiver risk

factors. And more work that was initiated in FFY 2020 was completed around capturing

appropriate service referrals. Also, coding was updated to improve reporting around perpe-

trator prior abuse.

During FFY 2022, coding and mapping updates were completed for reporting deaths due to

maltreatment. Also, coding was updated to improve reporting around child risk factors.

Children

During FFY 2019 additional elds were added to the state system and NCANDS data

extraction codes were modied to further improve accuracy and completeness of CARA-

related data. Fields to document CARA-related services are available on the system. Workers

are required to document plans of safe care in the system. Reports are generated to monitor

completion of these requirements.

During FFY 2021, the state did not modify its policies related to conducting investigations

and assessments. The state has continued to conduct face-to-face assessments and investiga-

tions. The policy requirements regarding timeframes to complete investigations did not

change during FFY 2021.

Alcohol abuse and drug abuse can both be documented independently as a child risk factor

and as a caregiver risk factor in the CCWIS system.

Fatalities

Child maltreatment fatalities reported to NCANDS are those children for which the

Department has investigated the child death. The circumstances of the child fatality are

entered into our CCWIS system as a CA/N report. Coroners, LEA and Medical Examiners

are legislatively mandated reporters.

For FFY 2022 all state child fatalities are reported in the Child File. Alabama’s Child Death

Review Team continued to meet during the pandemic. The meetings had been conducted

virtually prior to the pandemic, so no interruption due to social distancing requirements

occurred.

The FFY 2022 number of child fatalities was 38, an increase of 3 from FFY 2021. The

majority of child fatality investigations which are indicated are suspended for due process

Alabama (continued)

Appendix d: State Commentary 137

Child Maltreatment 2022

or criminal prosecution. This extends the length of the investigation, which can take several

months or years to complete. For the 38 fatalities reported in FFY 2022, the actual dates of

death occurred in a ve-year range, from FFY 2017–2021.

Perpetrators

Alabama state statutes do not allow a person under the age of 14 years to be identied as

a perpetrator. These reports are addressed in an alternate response. On-going services

are provided as needed to the child victim and the child identied as the person allegedly

responsible.

Alabama reports both caregiver and non-caregiver perpetrators of sex trafcking to

NCANDS.

Services

For foster care services, Alabama CCWIS does not require the documentation of the petition

or identity of the court-appointed representative. Petitions are prepared and led according

to the procedure of each court district. All children entering foster care are appointed by the

court a guardian ad litem, who represents their interests in all court proceedings. The state’s

CCWIS does not require the tracking of out of court contacts between the court-appointed

representative and the child victims. Improvement in data quality will require staff training

in this area.

The NCANDS category of the number of children eligible for referral to agencies providing

early intervention services under Part C of the IDEA is the number of children who had

indicated dispositions during FFY 2022 and were younger than 3 years. The NCANDS

category of the number of children referred to agencies providing early intervention services

under Part C of the IDEA is the number of referrals the agency providing services reported

receiving during FFY 2022.

Many services are provided through contract providers and may not be documented through

our CCWIS system. However, enhancements were made to the system in FFYs 2019–2021

to better capture services provided, including those that may not use the system to initiate

payments.

Alabama (continued)

Appendix d: State Commentary 138

Child Maltreatment 2022

Alaska

Contact Susan Cable Phone 907–465–2203

Title Research Analyst II, Ofce of Children’s Services Email

[email protected]

Address Department of Health and Social Services

P.O. Box 112631

Juneau, AK

99811-2631

General

The State of Alaska utilizes a single child welfare information system, the Online Resource

for the Children of Alaska (ORCA), which was previously designated as a Statewide

Automated Child Welfare Information System (SACWIS). In 2018, Alaska declared ORCA

as a transitional Comprehensive Child Welfare Information System (CCWIS) under CCWIS

regulations. All NCANDS data is entered into and then transmitted from, ORCA.

The Child Protection Practice Model of Alaska focuses on those families where a formal

intervention by the state is necessary. This model emphasizes a strengths-based, family-

centered approach through the standardization of information gathering, enhanced assess-

ment and critical thinking skills by the Child Protection (CP) staff. Decisions regarding

needed interventions with families are based on thorough processes for initial and ongoing

assessment of safety, risk, and protective factors. The CP program serves families who are

identied as having children who are “unsafe” or at “high risk” for future maltreatment.

The state of Alaska does not utilize differential response, however, we work closely with our

tribal partners on every protective service report received that includes an Alaska Native or

American Indian Child.

Reports

The State of Alaska NCANDS submission includes all children reported to be victims of

physical injury, sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, neglect, or mental injury including those

that can later be determined to be screened out for assessment. The reporter may identify

him or herself or be anonymous and reports are accepted by phone, letter, fax, e-mail, or

in person. A Protective Services Report (PSR) may be screened in when the information

received indicates a child may be unsafe or is at high risk of harm by a primary caregiver,

parent, custodian, or guardian. There are three levels of screen in;

1) Priority 1 must be responded to as soon as possible but no later than 24 hours of the time

the report is received by OCS.

2) Priority 2 must be responded to no later than 72 hours of the time the report is received

by the OCS.

3) Priority 3 must be responded to within seven days of the time the report is received by

the OCS.

NCANDS data from the past ve years shows a continual decrease in reports screened

in. Although Alaska continues to research the reason behind this trend, two factors which

contribute to the decline is the reduction in children enrolled in public school and a policy

change in the screening of Priority 3 level reports, more clearly dening high risk screening,

so some reports which would previously have been screened in for 7-day response are now

being screened out.

Appendix d: State Commentary 139

Child Maltreatment 2022

Although it did not affect the number of reports received, it is noted that an unprecedented

worker turnover rate of 60 percent for front-line, case-carrying staff, was seen in FFY 2022.

In Alaska, workforce data is calculated using full-time equivalents (FTE).

Children

Alaska completes a safety assessment on all child victims, their siblings, and any other chil-

dren in the home, regardless of if they were noted as victim or not. In FFY 2022, there was a

decrease in the number of children reported as possible abuse or neglect victims as compared

to the previous year. Similarly, the number of substantiated victims decreased as well.

In alignment with federal guidance, in 2020, specic data indicators on sex trafcking were

added to both the initial Protective Service Report and the Initial Assessment. Reports are

made to law enforcement if any sex trafcking is suspected and all youth who go on runaway

status are then assessed for potential trafcking once found. Furthermore, the State of

Alaska has a process for reporting to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children

(NCMEC) and the National Crime Information Center (NCIC).

Fatalities

In the State of Alaska, the authority for child fatality determinations resides with the Medical

Examiner’s Ofce, not the child welfare agency. The Medical Examiner’s Ofce assists the

state’s Child Fatality Review Team in determining if a child’s death was due to maltreatment.

A child fatality is reported only if the Medical Examiner’s Ofce concludes that the fatal-

ity was due to maltreatment. For NCANDS reporting, fatality counts are obtained from a

member of the Child Fatality Review Team and reported in the NCANDS Agency File.

Perpetrators

Alaska does not have a limitation on how young a perpetrator can be; however, the

state is currently looking into ways to better document child-on-child abuse.

The NCANDS category “other” perpetrator relationship includes perpetrators who are

not primary or secondary caregivers to the child (i.e., non-caregivers) such as a stranger

or adult who does not live in the home and does not normally have access to the child.

Services

The State of Alaska does not document services provided to families in the CCWIS,

however, we partner with our tribal entities to provide preventative and ongoing services

to the families we serve. In 2017, the State of Alaska and eighteen Tribal Co-signers,

representing a total of sixteen tribes, signed the Tribal Welfare Compact. Services provided

via the Compact include Initial Diligent Relative Searches, Ongoing placement searches,

Licensing Assistance, Safety Evaluation of an Unlicensed Relative Home, Family Contact,

Primary and Secondary Prevention.

A pilot program for Plans of Safe Care with the Department of Public Health is currently

underway. Once an evaluation of effectiveness of the program has been completed, the Ofce

of Children’s Service will work to implement a mechanism to track Plans of Safe Care within

the CCWIS.

Alaska (continued)

Appendix d: State Commentary 140

Child Maltreatment 2022

Arizona

Contact Andrew Egge Phone 602-255-2744

Title Information Technology Manager, Reports and

Statistics

andrew[email protected]

Address Arizona Department of Child Safety

AZ Department of Child Safety

P.O. Box 6030

Site Code C010-14

Phoenix, AZ 85003–6030

General

The le for 2021 reporting period had both code and replicated data issues, several of which

have been resolved in the 2022 le. The change from 2021 le is due primarily to improve-

ments to the 2022 le. Specic improvements include: 1. modied code logic to include all

children in Intakes within an investigation closed in the reporting period (given the depen-

dency that an investigation may not be closed until all ndings are entered, and which yields

the earliest date all ndings are entered); 2. included children with missing birthdates, and; 3.

resolved missing Intake ID, Assessment ID, and Removal Details replicated data issues.

Reports

The Hotline continued to answer calls as normal, with no changes to hours or stafng levels.

The department’s call center and child safety specialists are all full- time employees. These

services are not contracted out. DCS has a set of criteria to determine if a communication

(intake) qualies as a report of abuse or neglect according to the denitions in Arizona

statute. If an intake meets the criteria to be a report of abuse or neglect, the staff determines

if the report is in the Jurisdiction of DCS. If not, the information is sent to the correct

Jurisdiction, such as an American Indian tribe. If the report falls under DCS jurisdiction, it is

nalized and sent to the Field to begin the assessment (investigation).

Children

DCS received over 8,000 more reports in 2022 when compared to 2021. On the over 8,000

reports there was an increase of approximately 9,000 more children. This trend aligns with

the re-opening of schools and other mandatory reporting sources impacted by COVID. The

2022 counts also align with 2019 (pre-Covid) counts.

All children in the home are assessed if the intake meets the criteria for a report, includ-

ing children who are not the subject of the current allegations. We are able to distinguish

between alcohol and drug risk factors.

The Guardian system has made IPSE (also referred to as substance exposed newborns) an

allegation type. We did not report Safe Care Plan information this reporting period. Our

business team will review this element to determine if a change is needed for the next report-

ing period.

Perpetrators

DCS maps 2 values to this element for reporting “Other”. “NON-RELATIVE” (available in

the CHILDS System) and “Other Adult” (available in the Guardian System). When this is

the relationship indicated, we map the value to “other”. DCS does not report non-caregiver

perpetrators to NCANDS.

Appendix d: State Commentary 141

Child Maltreatment 2022

Services

In July 2021 DCS offered a new service array. Parent Aide and Family Preservation Services

were no longer offered as part of contracted services after July 2021. DCS now provides

Family Connections, and Nurturing Parenting Program which are available to all families

whether the children are In-Home or Out of Home care. In SFY 2022, MIECHV was reduced

from $3.8M to $2.4M.

DCS has both outsourced services and services provided by the Department as well as

services provided by other child serving state agencies. As of April 2021, DCS integrated

health care for youth in Out Of Home care providing physical, dental and behavioral health

services through Arizona’s Medicaid health plan specically for youth in foster care.

Arizona (continued)

Appendix d: State Commentary 142

Child Maltreatment 2022

Arkansas

Contact Nellena Garrison Phone 501–320–6503

Title DCFS Information Systems Manager

Department of Human Services

nellena.garrison@dhs.arkansas.gov

Address Ofce of Information Technology

108 E. 7th Street, Donaghey Plaza North, 3rd Floor

Little Rock, AR 72201

General

The following options are available when accepting a referral:

■ Refer to DCFS for Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder Assessment (R/A-FASD): The

following change was made to Arkansas legislation effective July 2011—Act 1143 requires

health care providers involved in the delivery or care of infants to report infants born and

affected by Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder. The Department of Human Services shall

accept referrals, calls, and other communication from health care providers involved in

the delivery or care of infants born and affected with FASD. The Department of Human

Services shall develop a plan of safe care of infants born with FASD. The Arkansas State

Police Hotline staff used the Request for DCFS assessment for FASD. These were auto-

matically assigned to the DCFS Central Ofce FASD Project Unit to complete the assess-

ment and closure. The R/A-FASD Assessment was updated and integrated with a new

Refer to DCFS for N. I. Substance Exposure (R/A-SE) Assessment type during FFY 2020.

■ Refer to DCFS for N. I. Substance Exposure Assessment (R/A-SE): Arkansas legisla-

tion effective July 2019—Act 598 requires healthcare providers involved in delivery or

care of infants reporting an infant born and affected by Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder

(FASD) (the previous requirement), and adds infants born and affected by maternal

substance abuse resulting in prenatal drug exposure to an illegal or a legal substance,

or withdrawal symptoms resulting from prenatal drug exposure to an illegal or a legal

substance to that list. Refer to DCFS Newborn Infant Substance Exposure Assessments do

not have allegations of maltreatment at the time of the Referral.

■ Referrals regarding substance exposed infants would be screened out for the follow-

ing circumstances:

• If reported by persons other than medical personnel,

• If the referral is a duplicate and an investigation already is opened,

• If the mother tests positive during her pregnancy but not at birth, or

• If the Health Care Provider can conrm the mother’s prescription for the drug causing

the positive screening.

For FFY 2021 the Request for Assessment Refer to DCFS for N.I. Substance Exposure

(R/A-SE) was included in the data. The R/A-SE Assessment Type was added to the

NCANDS logic as an Alternative Response Referral for FFY 2021. The R/A-SE

Assessments are mapped to the NCANDS category of alternative response nonvictim.

Clients under 1 year old who meet the other dened criteria are counted for any RA-SE

Assessment Type:

• FASD

• Substance Use Resulting in Prenatal Exposure

• Withdrawal Symptoms Resulting From Prenatal Exposure

■ Refer to CACD for Death Assessment (R/A-DA): Arkansas FFY 2015 legislation man-

dated per Act 1211, the Department of Human Services and Arkansas State Police Crimes

Against Children Division (CACD) will conduct an investigation or death assessment

upon receiving initial notication of suspected child maltreatment or notication of a child

Appendix d: State Commentary 143

Child Maltreatment 2022

death. This was effective in Children’s Reporting Information System (CHRIS) August

2, 2015. The Child Abuse Hotline will accept a report for a child death if a child has died

suddenly and unexpectedly not caused by a known disease or illness for which the child

was under a physician’s care at the time of death, including without limitation child deaths

as a result of the following:

• Sudden infant death syndrome;

• Sudden unexplained infant death;

• An accident;

• A suicide;

• A homicide; or

• Other undetermined circumstance

All sudden and unexpected child deaths will be reported to the Child Abuse Hotline.

Death Assessment (DA) reports are accepted by the Hotline and do not have allegations of

maltreatment at the time of the Referral. The data for R/A-DA reports are not submitted

to NCANDS. If the incident does rise to the level of a child maltreatment investigation,

then the Referral will be elevated to be investigated. Child Death Investigation reports are

accepted by the Hotline and will have maltreatment allegations at the time of the referral.

■ Accept for Investigation: Reports of child maltreatment allegations will be assigned

for child maltreatment investigation pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated 12-18-601.

Arkansas uses an established protocol when a DCFS family service worker or the

Arkansas State Police Crimes Against Children Division investigator conducts a child

maltreatment assessment. The protocol was developed under the authority of the state

legislator, (ACA 12-18-15). It identies various types of child maltreatment a DCFS family

service worker or an Arkansas State Police Crimes Against Children Division investigator

may encounter during an assessment. The protocol also identies when and from whom an

allegation of child maltreatment may be taken. The worker or investigator must show that

a preponderance of the evidence supports the allegation of child maltreatment. The data

for these reports are submitted to NCANDS.

■ Accept for Differential Response: Differential response (DR) is another way of respond-

ing to allegations of child neglect. DR is different from DCFS’ traditional investigation

process. It allows allegations that meet the criteria of neglect or physical abuse that

occurred at least one year from the Referral Date to be diverted from the investigative

pathway and serviced through the DR track. DR is designed to engage low- to moderate-

risk families in the services needed to keep children from becoming involved with the

child welfare system. Counties have a differential response team to assess for safety,

identify service needs, and arrange for the services to be put in place. FFY 2013 was the

rst year the state submitted differential response data to NCANDS. Differential Response

Referrals are mapped to Mapped to the NCANDS category of alternative response

nonvictim.

Reports

On September 6, 2022, the Arkansas Mandated Reporter Portal (MRP) went live. This is

a new public-facing website that mandated reporters can create an account and submit a

child maltreatment report using a new secure online portal. The new website is designed to

be user-friendly and easy to learn. If there are any questions, the portal includes a step-by-

step video to walk the user through the process of submitting online. This new portal has

been created in addition to the hotline for reporting suspected child abuse and neglect. The

Arkansas (continued)

Appendix d: State Commentary 144

Child Maltreatment 2022

Arkansas Child Abuse Hotline remains accessible. Once a referral is submitted through the

MRP, the information transfers directly into the current case management system CHRIS for

the ASP Hotline staff to complete the Referral determination. For the period September 6,

2022 through September 30, 2022 (end of FFY 2022), there were 2,244 Referrals submitted

through the MRP.

Children

All children in the home are assessed during the investigation process.

Fatalities

The Arkansas Division of Children and Family Services receives notice of child fatalities

through the Arkansas Child Abuse hotline. The reports include referrals from mandated

reporters such as, physicians, medical examiners, law enforcement ofcers, therapists, and

teachers, etc. A report alleging a child fatality can also be accepted from a non-mandated

reporter. Non-mandated reporters include neighbors, family members, friends, or members

of the community. The guidelines for reporting are mandated and non-mandated persons are

asked to contact the child abuse hotline if they have reasonable cause to believe that a child

has died as a result of child maltreatment.

All sudden and unexpected child deaths will be reported to the Child Abuse Hotline. Death

Assessment (R/A-DA) reports are accepted by the Hotline and do not have allegations of

maltreatment at the time of the Referral. The data for R/A-DA reports are not submitted to

NCANDS. If the incident does rise to the level of a child maltreatment investigation, then the

Referral will be elevated to be investigated. Child Death Investigation reports are accepted

by the Hotline and will have maltreatment allegations at the time of the referral. All Child

Death Investigation reports are included in the Child File data submission.

Perpetrators

An alleged offender must be fourteen years of age or older. For sexual abuse allegations by

an alleged offender under fourteen years old, a role in referral is selected of “Alleged Juvenile

Offender-Under Age Fourteen” and Findings of “Exempted (Underage Juvenile Offender

at Time of Incident)” for the applicable sexual abuse allegations that were found to have a

preponderance of evidence to support a True Finding.

The following values are mapped to NCANDS code ‘other’ perpetrator relationship: Client,

Life Connection, Live-In, No Relation, Peer, Signicant Other, and Student.

Arkansas accepts reports of Sex Trafcking by adult non-caregiver offenders 18 years of age

or older. This data is reported to NCANDS in the Child File.

Services

Arkansas continued to use the additional funding provided through the Relief Bill

promoting Safe and Stable Families. The Intensive In-Home Services funding source will

no longer be utilized for Safe and Stable Families for FFY 2023. The state outsources

some contracted services such as Parenting Training and Substance Abuse Treatment.

Arkansas (continued)

Appendix d: State Commentary 145

Child Maltreatment 2022

California

Contact Christina Hoerl Phone 916–651–0229

Title Section Chief, Data Analytics Bureau Email

[email protected]

Address California Department of Social Services

744 P Street, MS 8–05–656

Sacramento, CA 95814

General

California made a number of coding changes for the Child File to account for updates to

our statewide child welfare information system and to ensure alignment with the NCANDS

mapping instructions. Data reported in the services section of the Child File has changed the

most from last year as a result. More specically, we:

■ Adjusted our coding to only count services if they continued past the client disposition. This

resulted in a lower number of children being reported with services compared to Federal

Fiscal Year (FFY) 2021. This also resulted in a decrease in the percent of children reported

with Case Management services and an increase in the percent of children reported with this

service as unknown or missing.

■ Updated our coding to account for updates to our statewide system that capture Family

Preservation Services, as well as include children already in a case with a service compo-

nent of Family Maintenance, resulting in an increase in the percent of children reported

with those services and a decrease in the percent of children reported with this service as

unknown or missing.

■ Updated our coding to account for updates to our statewide system that capture Family

Planning Services, resulting in this item being changed from Not collected/Not applicable

to reportable and a large increase in the percent of children with this service as unknown or

missing.

■ Updated our coding to account for updates to our statewide system that capture Health-

Related and Home Health Services, resulting in an increase in the percent of children

reported with this service and a decrease in the percent of children with this service as

unknown or missing.

■ Re-coded services in our system that used to map to Employment Services and to Home-

Based Services to other NCANDS categories, resulting in no services being mapped to

Employment Services or Home-Based Services (now reported as Not collected/Not appli-

cable) and a decrease in the percent of children with those services as unknown or missing.

■ We also developed methodologies and began reporting on Agency File items #3.1, 4.3, and 5.2.

California’s differential response approach is comprised of three pathways:

■ Path 1 community response—family problems as indicated by the referral to the child

welfare system do not meet statutory denitions of abuse and neglect, and the referral is

evaluated out by child welfare with no investigation. But based on the information given at

the hotline, the family may be referred by child welfare to community services.

■ Path 2 child welfare services with community response—family problems meet statutory

denitions of abuse and neglect, but the child is safe, and the family has strengths that can

meet challenges. The referral of suspected abuse and neglect is accepted for investigation by

the child welfare agency, and a community partner goes with the investigator to help engage

the family in services. A case may or may not be opened by child welfare, depending on the

results of the investigation.

■ Path 3 child welfare services response—the child is not safe and at moderate to high risk

for continuing abuse or neglect. This referral appears to have some rather serious allegations

Appendix d: State Commentary 146

Child Maltreatment 2022

at the hotline, and it is investigated, and a child welfare services case is opened. Once an

assessment is completed, these families may still be referred to an outside agency for some

services, depending on their needs.

Reports

As a result of COVID-19 restrictions easing and children returning to in-person learning,

the number of calls to the child welfare hotline have increased, but not yet returned to pre-

pandemic levels. There was an increase of about 7 percent. For FFY 2022 compared to 2021,

The greatest gain was seen in reports made by education personnel.

The report count includes both the number of child abuse and neglect reports that require,

and then receive, an in-person investigation within the time frame specied by the report

response type. Reports are classied as either immediate response or 10-day response. For

a report that was coded as requiring an immediate response to be counted in the immediate

response measure, the actual visit (or attempted visit) must have occurred within 24 hours

of the report receipt date. For a report that was coded as requiring a 10-day response to

be counted in the 10-day response measure, the actual visit (or attempted visit) must have

occurred within 10-days of the report receipt date. For the quarter ending September 2022,

the immediate response compliance rate was 94.7 percent, and the 10-day response compli-

ance rate was 86.1 percent.

Children

The California Department of Social Services (CDSS) has policies to investigate/assess all

children in a household if any child in the household has a maltreatment allegation. First, the

investigating social worker performing the initial investigation must determine the potential

risks to the child, or any child in the family or household, and have in-person contact with all

the children alleged to be abused, neglected, or exploited. If the social worker nds that the

referral is not unfounded, they must conduct an in-person investigation with all children present

at the time of the initial in-person investigation. It is then at the discretion of the county to

decide whether to conduct an in-person investigation with any additional children who were not

present at the initial in-person investigation. In our statewide child welfare information system,

we have an allegation type of “At Risk, Sibling Abused.” This allegation type is reported to

NCANDS as “No alleged maltreatment.”

System changes to capture the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act of 2016 (CARA)

related elds (substance exposed infants, creation of plans of safe care, and referral to appropri-

ate services) were completed in July 2020 and data entry guidance was released to counties in

November 2020. Our analyses have found that there are a high number of plans of safe care

and referrals to services entered into our system which originate from reports not provided by

medical professionals, and many of these are notated as “other” reporters. While we do not

expect that 100 percent of our plans of safe care and referrals to services will originate from

reports made by medical professionals, it is likely at least some of the reports made by “other”

sources could be more accurately entered as medical professionals. We will continue to work

with counties to accurately enter report sources.

While the system changes to capture CARA related data improved NCANDS reporting of alco-

hol and drug abuse child risk factors for infants, there are instances where we cannot separate

California (continued)

Appendix d: State Commentary 147

Child Maltreatment 2022

alcohol abuse from drug abuse. When our data indicates that an infant has a substance expo-

sure type of “Substance Abuse,” “Withdrawal Symptoms,” or “Other,” the child is reported as

having both alcohol abuse and drug abuse, as instructed in the Child File Codebook. We hope

to address this limitation and other opportunities for data improvement in the coming years.

While California’s system has existing elds to capture caregiver drug and alcohol abuse, as

well as drug and alcohol abuse for children who are not infants, these elds are seldom used,

resulting in very low counts of caregiver risk factors especially. California will be implement-

ing a system change in March of 2023 to collect drug and alcohol abuse data for all clients and

caregivers in all investigated referrals to improve reporting to NCANDS. These elds will

need to be completed for every client in a referral before the referral can be closed. While it’s

expected that the addition of these elds, and the requirement that they be completed before

closing a referral, will improve the completeness of data on client risk factors, it is likely a

number of responses will be reported as “Unable to Determine,” which is being added to allow

users exibility when they do not know for certain whether a risk factor is present or not.

CDSS has a policy to track commercially sexually exploited (CSE) youth referrals with an

allegation of “Exploitation.” CSE allegations are entered in one of two ways: rst, by choosing

“Exploitation” and, to differentiate this from other exploitation referrals, with the sub-category

of “Commercial Sexual Exploitation;” second, by choosing “General Neglect” with a sub-

category of “Fail/Unable to Protect from CSE.” There is a limitation with these data, however.

Only when the allegation is substantiated can the sub-categories be entered. Thus, inconclusive

CSE allegations are not reported as CSE.

Fatalities

Fatality data submitted to NCANDS is derived from notications (SOC 826 forms) submitted

to the CDSS from County Child Welfare Services (CWS) agencies when it has been deter-

mined that a child has died as the result of abuse and neglect, as required by SB 39, Chapter

468, Statutes of 2007. The abuse and neglect determinations reported by CWS agencies are

made by local coroner/medical examiner ofces, law enforcement agencies, and/ or county

CWS/probation agencies. As such, the data collected and reported via SB 39 and used for

NCANDS reporting purposes reects child death information derived from multiple sources. It

does not, however, represent information directly received from either the state’s vital statistics

agency or local child death review teams.

The data is used to meet the reporting mandates of the federal Child Abuse Prevention and

Treatment Act (CAPTA) and for the Title IV-B, Annual Progress and Services Report (APSR).

Calendar Year (CY) 2021 is the most recent validated annual data and is therefore reported for

FFY 2022. It is recognized that counties will continue to determine causes of fatalities to be

the result of abuse and/or neglect that occurred in prior years. Therefore, the number reected

in this report is a point in time number for CY 2021 as of December 2022 and may change if

additional fatalities that occurred in CY 2021 are later determined to be the result of abuse and/

or neglect. For fatalities that occurred while the child was in foster care, the perpetrator infor-

mation is unavailable until full case reviews of CY 2022 critical incidents are concluded. Any

changes to this number will be reected in NCANDS trends analyses, through resubmissions,

as well as subsequent year’s APSR reports.

California (continued)

Appendix d: State Commentary 148

Child Maltreatment 2022

With the enactment of SB 39, the CDSS determined that the data provided through the SB 39

reporting process would provide not only more current information regarding child maltreat-

ment deaths in California than the reconciliation audit conducted by CDPH, but would also

provide data from multiple agency sources providing more reliable data for NCANDS. As a

result, beginning with the FFY 2010 NCANDS data submission in CY 2011, the CDSS changed

the data source to the SB 39 data. It is important to note that while SB 39 data were used in the

FFY 2022 NCANDS submission, the data were derived from CY 2021. Additionally, beginning

in CY 2012 CDSS began to receive reports of fatalities determined to be the result of abuse and

neglect and caused by an unknown third party where a parent or caretaker did not contribute

to the child’s death. NCANDS submissions of FFY 2013 (CY 2012) forward includes such

fatalities.

Perpetrators

California does not have a limit on how young a perpetrator can be. The following is an

excerpt from guidance released by the California Department of Social Services in All

County Letter 17-85:

Circumstances may arise where the abuse or neglect occurs within the home, but the perpe-

trator is a non-parent under the age of 18. The county hotline screener must still assess any

referral indicating a possible failure or inability to protect involving the parent that places

the child at risk. The county, in consultation with county counsel and at its discretion, may

choose to investigate and substantiate an allegation involving a minor perpetrator. When

doing so, best practice indicates that the county considers several factors including, but not

limited to, the following:

■ The relationship between the perpetrator and the victim.

■ The ages and developmental levels of the perpetrator and victim.

■ Whether the action constitutes developmentally normal behavior (i.e., sexual exploration

between two pre-school aged children, or physical aggression between siblings, if the

behavior was not extreme and the parents responded appropriately).

■ If the perpetrator has the developmental ability and capacity to understand the gravity of

his or her actions or acted with willful disregard to the danger, pain or fear of the other

child.

■ The severity and frequency of the alleged abuse.

■ If the action negatively affects the long-term safety and well-being of either child.

Relationship types of “Indian Custodian” (where the child is an Indian Child), “Live In,” and

“No Relation” are included in “other” perpetrator relationship.

Services

Prevention services in California are implemented through a state-supervised, county

administered system. This system has the advantage of allowing the 58 counties in California

exibility to address child abuse prevention efforts through a community based local lens.

This approach, however, results in 58 sets of challenges in program implementation, evalu-

ation, data collection, and reporting. Federal funding is allocated to each county to support

a variety of prevention services. Federal funding streams targeted for prevention services

include Community-Based Child Abuse Prevention (CBCAP), Promoting Safe and Stable

Families (PSSF), Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA), and Child Abuse

California (continued)

Appendix d: State Commentary 149

Child Maltreatment 2022

Prevention, Intervention and Treatment (CAPIT). The Ofce of Child Abuse Prevention

(OCAP) is responsible for monitoring federal expenditures as well as ensuring counties are

evaluating the quality of programs consistently. Since the State Fiscal Year (SFY) and the

FFY are not aligned, information for SFY 2021–22 is representative of FFY 2022.

On January 25, 2021, the Regional Stay at Home Order was lifted by the California

Department of Public Health for all regions within California. These organizations have been

able to resume in-person service delivery or provide a hybrid option which includes virtual

or in-person services. As providers and families adjusted to a virtual platform for service

delivery, there was a recognition that virtual services offered a level of convenience which

encouraged participation by families that traditionally were unable to engage in services.

Although the virtual platform allows for exibility, one of the on-going challenges providers

continue to face is staff shortages and high turnover rates.

On January 8, 2021, Governor Gavin Newsom announced a state budget proposal that

included critical supports for Family Resource Centers (FRCs) to respond to the COVID-19

pandemic. Specically, the measure proposed $7 million in General Funds in SFY 2020-21

and $6 million in General Fund for SFY 2021–22 for COVID-19 related supports for child

welfare services. Throughout SFY 2021–22, 95 lead agencies, and a total of 375 FRCs,

received supports from the relief funds. FRCs reported most funds went towards concrete

supports for families. Many of the funds went towards stafng for FRCs to provide continued

direct services for families. FRCs continue to report an increased need in concrete supports,

hiring staff to meet service and business needs, and staff training.

Governor Newsom provided General Funds for the creation of a parent, caregiver, and

youth remote helpline to support families with stressors arising from the pandemic. The

OCAP contracted with Parents Anonymous to provide remote support to families through

text support, live chats, resource coordination, and virtual support groups across the state

of California. In SFY 2021–22, Parents Anonymous continued to provide such services,

responding to 17,019 calls. Parents Anonymous has consistently seen a rise in the need of

connections to concrete supports and additional assistance for families and individuals in

remote locations.

In 2021, the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) under CBCAP provided $29,667,177 in fund-

ing, of which $25,000,000 was provided to counties to provide direct services to families.

CBCAP ARPA funding was released in the form of grants through the OCAP in the amount

of $4,667,177. The ARPA under CAPTA provided $12,063,503 in funding that was provided

in the form of grants through the OCAP. Request for Applications (RFAs) were developed

in SFY 2021-22 for 3 grant series: Father Engagement, Strong Communities, and Planting

Prosperity. The Father Engagement grant will provide father-specic case management and

evidence-informed/-based services through eight grants. The Strong Communities grant

will award eight grantees to expand FRCs. Lastly, the Planting Prosperity grant will provide

funds to 10 agencies to develop innovative primary and secondary prevention services

throughout California.

Each year the CDSS also allocates prevention funding directly to counties for disbursement.

This information is gathered in a data collection system funded by the OCAP.

California (continued)

Appendix d: State Commentary 150

Child Maltreatment 2022

In 2022, the OCAP transitioned from utilizing Efforts to Outcomes (ETO) software system

for data collection and reporting to Apricot Social Solutions. Over the past four years, the

OCAP requested counties select one unit of measure (children, parents/caregivers, or fami-

lies) for service counts instead of multiple units of measure for one service activity to reduce

duplicative service counts. This request has led to some improvements in the way informa-

tion is captured, however, in some instances counties are changing the unit of measure

collected from year to year so it is difcult to compare service counts. Discrepancies between

service counts from year to year may be attributed to changes in vendor contracts, evaluation

methodologies, and/or the transition from in-person services to a virtual platform. To the

best of OCAP’s knowledge, the data collected for children, parents, and families is mutually

exclusive.

For SFY 2021–2022, the OCAP included a question about completion rates. This informa-

tion provides insight as to the relative success of a program or intervention’s engagement

strategy. The OCAP recognizes that completion rates alone are not indicative of improved

long-term outcomes, however, this information provides a baseline understanding of the level

of engagement and participation in the program or intervention which is one step towards a

successful outcome.

For SFY 2021–22, counties reported 5,101 parents/caregivers served by CAPIT funding,

5,707 parents/caregivers served by CBCAP funds, and 18,082 parents/caregivers served by

PSSF funding. The data indicates that counties served more children using PSSF funding in

SFY 2021-22, than in previous scal years. There are several potential factors that may have

contributed to the increase in the number of children served in SFY 2021-22, these include:

■ Improved data collection methodology.

■ In-person services and activities have resumed since COVID-19 restrictions have been

lifted.

■ Flexibility of the virtual platform which eliminates the barriers associated with transporta-

tion and childcare.

■ Changes to the unit measured (counties may have selected to measure parent service

counts in the previous reporting period, and in SFY 2021–22 chose to collect data based

on the child for the same intervention).

■ Increases in the number of contracted staff in some counties.

■ Increased technical assistance support early in the reporting period by OCAP Consultants.

There are several factors that may be associated with a decrease in the number of children

served using CAPIT and CBCAP funding and these include:

■ Counties corrected inaccuracies in reporting from the prior scal year

■ Lower rates of referrals to children and family support services

■ Changes in way service counts were measured (children, parents/caregivers, families)

■ Changes to service provider contracts (termination of contracts) or new programs started

during the middle of the scal year therefore not capturing total numbers served for the

entirety of the scal year

■ Signicant number of resignations across agencies and it has been difcult hiring qualied

staff which has led to the inability of providers to serve as many or more children, parents,

and families

■ Other challenges, such as concerns with resurgence in COVID-19 cases

California (continued)

Appendix d: State Commentary 151

Child Maltreatment 2022

In SFY 2021–22, twelve counties reported a decrease in the number of children served with

CAPIT dollars compared to SFY 2020–21.

The Celebrating Families! (CF!) grant funded with $51,769 in CAPTA funds allowed

Prevention Partnership International (PPI) to provide train-the-trainer training and technical

assistance to agencies who will be administered the Celebrating Families! program. The

trained agencies planned to each reach at least 10-15 families in their respective sites in the

third year of the grant. The families served are at risk for experiencing child abuse/neglect,

or family violence due to substance use disorders and other adverse childhood experiences.

A Year Two evaluation was completed for CF! and it was reported that though training and

technical assistance to agencies was not largely affected by COVID-19, having the CF! pro-

gram implemented virtually and in-person depending on the changing restrictions affected

the number of families served. Stafng shortages and turnovers also affected program

implementation.

The OCAP continued the Economic Empowerment with three organizations and awarded 10

new organizations committed to support the nancial empowerment of parents and alleviate

the stress of poverty in their communities. This program involves providing supports to

parents using the “Your Money, Your Goals” nancial empowerment toolkit developed by the

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. A total of $440,410 in CAPTA funds and $376,770

in CBCAP funds was allocated to support the program in SFY 2021-22. In SFY 2021-22,

agencies began transitioning back to an in-person service delivery model while still provid-

ing services virtually, as needed. Special populations that have been served and prioritized

through outreach include:

■ Unhoused or at-risk of homelessness

■ English as a second language caregivers (Main languages include Spanish, Chinese, Farsi,

Russian, etc.)

■ Previously incarcerated caregivers

■ Migrant farmworkers and dayworkers

■ Parents with children ages 0–5

The Road to Resilience grant funding is supported with $7,011,462.30 in Child Abuse

Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) funds. The 12 grantees are composed of collabora-

tive partnerships between community-based and county government agencies. The objective

of the program is to serve pregnant women with known histories of substance use, pregnant

women with current substance use, and mothers of substance-exposed infants, linking them

to services and supports. In SFY 2021-22 Road to Resilience grantees had a total of 778

mothers served.

California (continued)

Appendix d: State Commentary 152

Child Maltreatment 2022

Colorado

Contact Detre Godinez Phone 303–866–5359

Title Federal Analyst and Liaison Email

detre.godinez@state.co.us

Address Colorado Department of Human Services,

Ofce of Children, Youth and Families

1575 Sherman Street

Denver, CO 80203

General

Colorado implemented the new Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System

(AFCARS) requirements in the fall of 2022. Implementation of Family First Prevention

Services Act is also underway with adaptation to these new processes. Improvement to

NCANDS data mappings of service and risk factor data were put on hold as improvements

were focused on these changes. NCANDS data will better reect services in Colorado as

CCWIS is modernized and mapping of services and risk factors are improved.

Colorado counties have the option to use Differential Response, which has a dual track

system for screened-in referrals. The referral options are traditional High-Risk Assessments

or a Family Assessment Response for low and moderate-risk referrals. Counties who are not

yet utilizing Differential Response only use High Risk Assessments. Safety and risk assess-

ments are completed for all screened-in referrals. Both tracks are reported to NCANDS.

Reports

There were no changes to policy or interpretation of statute around screening referrals

due to the pandemic. Face-to-face initial contacts and ongoing monthly contacts resumed

with additional measures to standard procedure for safety. Colorado has a hotline system

(1-844-CO-4-KIDS) that remained operational during the pandemic. Difculties in hiring

new staff continues to be an issue in Colorado.

Children

Colorado county agencies conduct face-to-face investigations and assessments as required to

accurately determine safety and risk of children. County workers continue to minimize possible

risks or exposure to COVID by taking additional precautions and maintaining public health

recommendations for protocols including washing hands, self-monitoring health, and minimiz-

ing social interactions and wearing a mask as needed.

Improvements to NCANDS data mappings of child and caregiver risk factor data were put on

hold due to data system modernization and AFCARS changes. Colorado’s child welfare system

does not allow for assessment of prenatal exposure and only for assessment at the time of birth.

Fatalities

Colorado’s Child Fatality Review Team (CFRT) were able to perform reviews.

Perpetrators

Colorado does not make ndings on third party perpetrators of sex trafcking; instead,

the caretakers are evaluated to see if their behaviors are providing access to the third-party

perpetrators.

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 153

The “other” perpetrator relationships include live-in partners, no relation, signicant other,

signicant other, foster son, foster daughter, teacher, school counselor, spouse (ex), restitu-

tion recipient, child under guardianship, signicant other (ex), neighbor, self, and host home

provider.

Services

In 2021, the Division of Child Welfare began implementing the Family First Prevention

Services Act, which is shifting services toward prevention and creating new avenues for

services. Colorado aims to better reect services in Colorado through CCWIS modernization

and mapping renements of services and risk factors.

Colorado does not outsource any direct child welfare protection services. Some services that

help to support families may be community-based.

Colorado (continued)

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 154

Connecticut

Contact Fred North Phone 860–817–7462

Title Program Director

Strategic Planning, Data Reporting and Evaluation

[email protected]

Address Department of Children & Families

505 Hudson Street

Hartford, CT 06106

General

The State of Connecticut (CT) Department of Children and Families (DCF) continues to

operate a Differential Response System (DRS). DRS is comprised of two tracks: Child

Protective Services (CPS) Investigations for moderate to high-risk cases, and Family

Assessment Responses (FAR) for low to moderate risk cases (exceptions apply). Currently,

CT does not report data concerning reports handled through a FAR response to NCANDS.

This means that the total number of abuse/neglect reports observed in the NCANDS data is

far lower than the total that we actually receive, accept and respond to each year. We have

also been increasingly utilizing the FAR response, to the point where during FFY 2022 we

used FAR to respond to about 60 percent of all accepted reports, although only 55.5 percent

remained solely a FAR response and did not change tracks to Investigation.

DCF policy did not change with regards to commencement within the designated response

time determined at time of acceptance, or for completion of DRS response within 33 business

days. Inconsistencies with that expectation were documented accordingly.

Reports

During the reporting period 88 Social Worker Trainees began their pre-service training.

DCF’s Academy for Workforce Development certied 114 new child protective services

hires as completing their pre-service training during FFY 2022. The CT DCF Careline is

the agency’s 24/7 centralized point of contact for reporting concerns of child abuse and

neglect. The Careline has maintained continuous operations 24/7/365 throughout the course

of the year. During FFY 2022, Careline continued utilizing a modern cloud-based call center

system (Five9) that allows for social worker screeners to work remotely up to 80 percent

of their schedules, consistent with the statewide labor agreement regarding telework. This

system helps to ensure the health and safety of staff, while maintaining continuous opera-

tions, as pandemic conditions continue. Careline social work screening staff are comprised of

50 full-time staff, and 13 part-time staff (at either 34, 32 or 20 hours per week).

Appropriately, screening calls is a top priority of the DCF Careline and was an area of

quality focus during FFY 2022. Through partnering with the DCF Bureau of Strategic

Planning, an in-depth qualitative review of non-accepted reports was completed. During

the review period more than 4,000 non-accepted reports were reviewed, with only 60 (1.3

percent) returned to Careline management for further review. Careline used this information

to improve performance and provide guidance regarding effective documentation of rationale

for not accepting a report. This review will continue semi-annually to maintain the high

standards established. Another noteworthy Careline accomplishment in FFY 2022 was the

completion of a Careline Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) Plan and the development

of CQI Teams. The CQI Plan contains key performance indicators that span all Careline

functions, and there are CQI Teams with areas of focus that include screening/response,

training/development and special investigations.

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 155

CT DCF has also continued to modernize our systems through ongoing enhancements to

our automated reporting portals. Enhancements were made to both the Child Protective

Services (CPS) Background Check and CAPTA Notication portals this year. The CAPTA

Notication portal allows birthing hospitals the ability to le online reports of abuse or

neglect to DCF OR to create a CAPTA Notication for those newborns identied as sub-

stance exposed and consistent with the criteria associated with a notication.

The Careline also implemented a new public facing mandated reporter portal in June 2022.

This portal allows all mandated reporters the ability to le non-emergent reports of abuse/

neglect online, and a training video explaining its use was posted online to help reporters

understand the system. DCF received 7,335 reports through the portal during FFY 2022,

receiving an average of 611 per month, ranging from a high of 812 in March to a low of 375

in August.

There was an 11 percent increase in overall CPS reports received during FFY 2022 compared

to FFY 2021. Every month saw increases when compared to the same month the previous

year, though months that see typical seasonal spikes saw the most increase as well. The

volume of reports received in March, June and December 2022 exceeded that of the pre-

pandemic, and formerly highest volume observed yet, months in 2019. Report volume in

September and November also came close to meeting the same volume for those months in

2019. The types of reporters making calls to the Careline have continued to evolve beyond

pre-pandemic proportions during FFY 2022, particularly with respect to those calling from

schools. In fact, the proportion of calls received from schools continued to rise during FFY

2022. All other groups showed a commensurate decrease in proportion from FFY 2021 to

FFY 2022 during almost all months.

Children

During FFY 2022, there was a 16 percent increase in the number of unique children who were

alleged victims, compared to FFY 2021. This correlates with the almost 20 percent increase in

the number of reports accepted for Investigation observed during this year as reporting contin-

ues to rebound from the pandemic. CT continued to conduct differential responses throughout

the course of this year and had returned to almost entirely in-person responses, with virtual

visitation only utilized when indicated.

Policies and procedures concerning the conducting of all differential responses did not change

during the course of the year. DCF continues to operate a CAPTA portal, which is a web-based

portal for notications of such children by birthing hospitals, which includes the ability to make

online reports of abuse/neglect when indicated. DCF received 1,880 notications through the

CAPTA portal during FFY 2022, of which 42.3 percent resulted in an actual abuse/neglect

report. Further, 71 percent indicated that a Plan of Safe Care had been developed for the child,

and 71 percent referred to appropriate services, as of the time of the notication. Data collected

by the portal is de-identied but does include required elements regarding development of a

Plan of Safe Care and Referral to Appropriate Services. These elds have not been incorporated

into our legacy SACWIS system, as they are planned to be developed in our upcoming CCWIS

system within the next one to two years.

Connecticut (continued)

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 156

DCF continues to strengthen its response to child victims of human trafcking as we learn

more in CT and across the country. During FFY 2022, DCF saw its largest increase in new

referrals, validating the increased activity by trafckers and demonstrating that the training

continues to improve the state’s identication of child victims. The number of new referrals

last year increased. Each of the six DCF Regions has a Human Antitrafcking Response Team

(HART) team consisting of a HART Lead and Liaison(s) that partner with law enforcement,

service providers and the identied Multidisciplinary Team(s) (MDT). These partnerships

ensure a collaborative response and coordinate services for child victims and their families.

Cases that do not meet the statutory denition of abuse and neglect are coordinated by the

Department’s HART Director in partnership with the relevant MDT(s). The Department’s

Human Trafcking Policy and Practice Guide allows for all cases of suspected child trafcking

be sent directly to the MDT Coordinators.

Fatalities

CT DCF continues to have appointed representatives that are members of, and regularly attend,

the CT Statewide Child Fatality Review Panel meetings. Other members include representa-

tives from the Ofce of the Chief State’s Attorney, Chief Medical Examiner, Child Advocate,

and more. The Child Fatality Review Panel has remained operational during the pandemic,

and no changes were made to policy regarding its operation. We have maintained our monthly

meeting, review data, those specic circumstances related to fatalities and systematic issues.

From these meetings, recommendations are generated for communications, dissemination of

information and other actions as a result. The receipt of child fatality data by the Panel has

also continued from the Ofce of the Chief State’s Attorney, Chief Medical Examiner, Child

Advocate, CT Department of Public Health and other law enforcement or medical entities

without interruption.

Perpetrators

CT Statute denes abuse and neglect as having been committed by a parent/guardian or

entrusted caretaker (see CT CGS 17a-101g). Most of Connecticut’s child trafcking cases are

the result of non-caregiver perpetrators, therefore, are not accepted by DCF Careline. The new

DCF Human Trafcking Policy and Practice Guide that went into effect in August 2021 created

a new pathway for non-accept cases. All calls of suspected child trafcking that are called into

the DCF Careline are reviewed by the HART director and are automatically sent to the state’s

seventeen Multidisciplinary Teams (MDTs) and Human Trafcking Task Force. This process

ensures that every case of suspected child trafcking receives the same access to support,

resources, and legal response despite the limits of state statute. The MDTs have access to the

states specialized providers for this population as well as a wealth of other supports and ser-

vices that can be benecial to the child victims and their families. All child trafcking cases are

documented in the Provider Information Exchange (PIE) data base. PIE data is used for federal

reporting, grant writing, service development, and statewide awareness.

The perpetrator relationship eld is used to capture the relationship between specic alleged

perpetrators and alleged victims. Types of relationships not specied in already dened

values are to be captured using the “Other” perpetrator relationship. Examples of such

relationships often include parents of other children in the family that are not step/adoptive

parents to the alleged victim, parents or relatives of a friend of the alleged victim, and school/

educational setting staff (i.e. janitors).

Connecticut (continued)

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 157

Services

CT DCF directly provides all Differential Response Services, as well as ongoing Child

Protective and Foster Care/Adoption services. DCF also funds a wide array of contracted

services to meet the ongoing needs of children, youth and families, and are aimed at both

prevention of abuse/neglect, and treatment of behavioral health, parenting skills, independent

living skills and many more. With very few exceptions, DCF modied our service system at

the onset of COVID to minimize non-emergency, in-home or in-person services. Our entire

service array transitioned very quickly to tele-health solutions and maintained a virtual

presence in home and with clients through COVID. With a brief exception during January

and early February 2022, the system has continued to utilize in-person services. Our current

status is that we are fully open to in-person services at this point while utilizing virtual

services when deemed appropriate.

The State of Connecticut has continued to plan for implementation of our Family First

Prevention Plan, developed in partnership with over 400 individuals from state agencies,

community-based providers, advocates, youth and families with lived experiences. What

makes this prevention plan unique is that CT has taken a bold approach to expand access to

prevention services to children and their caregivers “upstream” who present with particular

needs or characteristics that ultimately may result in DCF involvement, as identied through

a community pathway. Family First is being utilized as a tool, as part of Connecticut’s

overall prevention strategy, to assist in building upon an existing infrastructure and its

already diverse array of services and evidence-based programs (EBPs), with the goal to

prevent maltreatment and children entering foster care. DCF has already been funding

two of the services on the approved plan (Multi-Systemic Therapy and Functional Family

Therapy), and our partner agency the Ofce of Early Childhood (OEC) has been funding

three others (Healthy Families America, Nurse Family Partnership and Parents as Teachers).

Connecticut’s vision is to expand upon its collaborative child well-being system through

enhanced focus on prevention and early intervention. We have continued ongoing preparation

for full implementation throughout FFY 2022.

Connecticut (continued)

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 158

Delaware

Contact Christine Weaver Phone 302–892–6489

Title Data and Quality Assurance Manager

Division of Family Services

[email protected]

Address Delaware Department of Services for Children,

Youth and their Families

1825 Faulkland Road

Wilmington, DE 19805

General

Delaware’s Division of Family Services (DFS) has received an increase in reports of child

abuse, neglect and dependency. In FFY 2022, Delaware received an increase in reports.

Delaware continues to use Structured Decision Making® (SDM) at the report line, in

Investigation, and in Family Assessment Intervention Response (FAIR). By the use of this

evidence- and research-based tool, Delaware is better able to distinguish between cases that

require a full investigation and those that require an assessment or referrals for services

unrelated to child abuse and neglect, to consistently determine safety threats, and to make

decisions using the same set of standards. Delaware has continued our internal FAIR pro-

gramming and maintained our external FAIR contracts. For the current NCANDS reporting

period, Delaware has added internal FAIR data in the Child File. In the near future, we hope

to be able to include external FAIR data as we are building a provider portal to allow our

contracted FAIR services to enter information into our data system. This portal has been

built but is in the testing phase at this time. Delaware has updated juvenile trafcking deni-

tions to assist our intake staff on screening reports and has introduced a Commercial Sexual

Exploitation Identication Tool (CSE-IT).

On February 6, 2018, our new SACWIS system called FOCUS (For Our Children’s Ultimate

Success) went live. This integrated cloud-based system is implemented but remains under

construction. Change requests continue to be built and testing is ongoing. Delaware also

now has added a FOCUS mobile app that allows workers to have access to our data system

and enter specic events more readily from the eld. As we continue to improve FOCUS,

we have tasked ourselves with improving data quality including information used for the

NCANDS report. NCANDS validations are used as a data quality tool to determine areas

of need and improvement. We have added validations to our system to improve data quality

and more accurate reporting. We are in the process of building additional validations to

ensure updated demographics are completed on all investigation case participants. We have

improved our ability to validate case participants more accurately. Delaware has an estab-

lished Continuous Quality Improvement Data Quality Committee that continues to focus on

data quality improvement efforts.

Reports

In FFY 2022, Delaware received 23,537 family and 595 institutional abuse (IA) reports. Of

the reports received, 35 percent, were screened in for an assessment or investigation, a 2 per-

cent decrease as compared to the 37 percent in FFY 2021. Of reports screened in, 53 percent

were diverted through various differential response programs, as compared to 37 percent

in FFY 2021, a 16 percent increase. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Delaware hotline

remained at full capacity, and we did not alter our screening practice or policy. Delaware did

obtain Dialpad, a cloud-based communication platform to be used for intakes. This allows

hotline staff to have remote capability and ensure that all calls will be answered by a live

hotline worker, eliminating Delaware’s need for an answering service.

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 159

While 53 percent screened in reports were diverted through various differential response

programs, more than three thousand were screened in for a new investigation and more

than six hundred were linked to an already active investigation. In FFY 2022, Delaware has

overall completed less investigations than FFY 2021. This decrease in investigation comple-

tion numbers is contributed to the increase in referrals to contracted FAIR, and expansion

to our internal FAIR program. Because of the increase of cases diverted through differential

response, there is also an increase in unsubstantiated cases, victims, and perpetrators.

Previously some of these cases may have received a lower-level substantiation.

Since 2012, the State’s intake unit has used the Structured Decision Making® (SDM) tool

to collect sufcient information to access and determine the urgency to investigate child

maltreatment reports. Currently, all screened-in reports are assessed in a three-tiered priority

process to determine the urgency of the workers rst contact; Priority 1 - Within 24 hours,

Priority 2 - Within 3 days, and Priority 3 - Within 10 days. In FFY 2022, accepted referrals

for family abuse cases were identied as 68 percent routine/Priority 3, 18 percent Priority 2,

and 14 percent urgent/Priority 1 in response.

The calculation of our average response time for FFY 2022 was an increase of 15 percent

from FFY 2021, but still improved from FFY 2020. Delaware has made great efforts to

improve our timeliness response to investigations. We are using data informed practice

and have established initial interview due date reports and initial interview completion rate

reports that are shared with all staff. Despite our efforts to improve timeliness of response,

our vacancy rate is the highest it has been which has led to increase caseloads and an

increase in response time, particularly on our priority 3 reports.

Children

The State uses 50 statutory types of child abuse, neglect and dependency to substantiate an

investigation. The State code denes the following terms: “Abuse” is any physical injury to a

child by those responsible for the care, custody and control of the child, through unjustied

force as dened in the Delaware Code Title 11 §468, including emotional abuse, torture,

sexual abuse, exploitation, and maltreatment or mistreatment. “Neglect” is dened as the

failure to provide, by those responsible for the care, custody, and control of the child, the

proper or necessary: education as required by law; nutrition; supervision; or medical, surgi-

cal, or any other care necessary for the child’s safety and general well-being. “Dependent

Child” is dened as a child under the age of 18 who does not have parental care because of

the death, hospitalization, incarceration, residential treatment of the parent or because of the

parent’s inability to care for the child through no fault of the parent. It is Delaware’s policy to

assess all children that are part of the household where the alleged maltreatment occurred.

In FFY 2022, substantiated victims of child maltreatment is 7 percent of the children in the

Child File. In FFY 21, 9 percent of the children in the Child File were substantiated victims

of child maltreatment. Delaware is able to capture specic information related to caregiver

and child risk factors. Delaware implemented sex trafcking as an allegation type in January

2020. Reports regarding noncaregiver perpetrators of sex trafcking are accepted and

included in NCANDS report. Delaware has been reporting infants with prenatal substance

exposure for a number of years.

Delaware (continued)

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 160

Fatalities

House Bill 181 requires the agency to investigate all child deaths of children aged 3 and

under that are sudden, unexplained, or unexpected. Delaware also has a Maternal and Child

Death Review Commission that reviews every child death in the state. There is also a Child

Abuse and Neglect (CAN) panel that conducts retrospective reviews on all child death and

child near death cases where abuse or neglect is suspected. The state does not report any

child fatalities in the Agency File that are not reported in the Child File. For FFY 2022, the

state reported 6 fatalities.

Perpetrators

Delaware maintains a condential Child Protection Registry for individuals who have been

substantiated for incidents of abuse and neglect since August 1, 1994. The primary purpose

of the Child Protection Registry is to protect children and to ensure the safety of children

in childcare, health care, and public educational facilities. The Child Protection Registry in

Delaware does not include the names of individuals, who were substantiated for dependency;

parent and child conict, adolescent problems, or cases opened for risk of child abuse and

neglect. An adult Delaware intends to substantiate will receive a written notice of intent to

substantiate at the conclusion of the investigation. The notication includes a hearing request

form that must be returned within thirty days of the postmarked date of the notication. The

hearing request form enables the individual to receive a substantiation hearing in Family

Court. When the hearing request form is not returned within the specied timeframe, the

individual will automatically be entered on the Child Protection Registry. A minor will

receive a substantiation hearing without submitting a hearing request form. This registry is

not available through the internet and is not the same as the Sex Offender Registry main-

tained by the Delaware State Police State Bureau of Identication.

For FFY 2022, parent as a perpetrator ranks the highest in the perpetrator relationship to the

child. The Other relationship would include individuals such as a babysitter or nonrelated

household member.

Services

During FFY 2021, Delaware’s Children’s Department saw an increase in the number of

children and families served in agency le elements 1.1.C-C and 1.1 E-F. This was due to the

reopening of many programs following the slowdown of the COVID pandemic.

One of our programs is Team Decision Making, which engages the family, informal sup-

ports and formal supports in planning for children who are at risk of coming into care. This

process has remained steady in diverting youth into kinship placements instead of Foster

Care. Family Team Meetings is a growing component of our casework practice. Delaware

continues it partnerships with community organizations to provide community-based pres-

ervation and reunication services including family interventionists and kinship navigators.

Delaware has expanded our contracts with post adoptive services. Delaware has collaborated

with numerous community partners to provide better services and plans of safe care for

infants with prenatal substance exposure. We have partnerships with domestic violence

and substance abuse agencies that provide intervention services in conjunction with agency

case management. Delaware plans to continue to build on our service array for prevention

services in the upcoming years.

Delaware (continued)

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 161

Delaware has added additional elds to capture information on services provided in our

FOCUS system. These service elds were newly built into our data system as of February

2018. They were intended to be mandatory elds, however there was a defect allowing work-

ers to complete the event without adding any services. A validation was added and improve-

ments on data entry have been seen. Although improvements have been made, there remains

a data entry and completion delay that is being addressed by operations.

Delaware Division of Family Services provides case management and some foster care ser-

vices. Delaware outsources with community agencies to support additional foster care homes

and group care, FAIR intervention, post-adopt support, and a number of other services.

Delaware (continued)

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 162

District of Columbia

Contact Lori Peterson Phone 202–434–0055

Title IT Manager (User Support)

Child Information System Administration

[email protected]

Address Child and Family Services Agency

200 I St, SE

Washington, DC 20003

General

There have been no policy/practice changes that affect our FFY 2022 data. During FFY

2022, the Child and Family Services Agency (CFSA) has begun a new information technol-

ogy development process to replace its current SACWIS (known as “FACES”) with the new

CCWIS (known as Stronger Together Against Abuse and Neglect in DC (STAAND)). It is

anticipated that it will be complete in FFY 2024.

Reports

The data shows a slight increase in referrals. There has been an increase in vacancies in

CPS that have impacted our caseloads. The social work vacancies we are experiencing are

nationwide issue and our Human Resource department has hired a recruitment specialist to

help recruit to ll these vacancies.

Children

The District’s CFSA does not accept calls on alleged victims of sex trafcking aged above 18

years old. These occurrences are solely handled by the Metropolitan Police Department.

Fatalities

CFSA participates on the District-wide Child Fatality Review committee and uses informa-

tion from the Metropolitan Police Department and the District Ofce of the Chief Medical

Examiner (CME) when reporting child maltreatment fatalities to NCANDS.

The District reports fatalities in the Child File when neglect and abuse was a contributing factor

that led to the death of the child. The District denes Suspicious Child Death as a report of

child death is either unexplained, or concern exists that abuse or neglect by caregiver contrib-

uted to or caused the child’s death.

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 163

Florida

Contact Hans Soder Phone 850–717–4686

Title Director of Data & Information Services

Ofce of Child & Family Well-Being

hans.soder@myfamilies.com

Address Florida Department of Children and Families

2415 N Monroe St, Ste. 400

Tallahassee, FL 32303

General

In seven Florida Counties (Walton, Seminole, Broward, Manatee, Pinellas, Pasco,

Hillsborough), Child Protective Investigations are handled by the County Sheriff’s Ofces

through grant agreements. There have been no recent changes to our policies affecting

NCANDS data for FFY 2022 (maltreatments and determination of ndings).

Florida uses one pathway for intakes screened in for investigation. All screened-in intakes

alleging abuse, abandonment, and/or neglect are responded to through an investigative

response by a Child Protective Investigator. A separate type of referral (Special Conditions

Referral) is generated when certain conditions are reported to the Hotline and do not meet

the criteria for an investigation (do not contain allegations of child abuse, abandonment,

or neglect), but warrant a response by the department, investigating sheriff’s ofce or

community-based-care child welfare professional. These special conditions referrals include

caregiver unavailable, child on child sexual abuse, parent needs assistance, and foster care

referral.

Reports

The criteria to accept a report are that an alleged victim:

■ Is younger than 18 years.

■ Is a resident of Florida or can be located in the state at the time of the report.

■ Has not been emancipated by marriage or other order of a competent court.

■ Is a victim of known or suspected maltreatment by a parent, legal custodian, caregiver, or

other person responsible for the child’s welfare (including a babysitter or teacher).

■ Is in need of supervision and care and has no parent, legal custodian, or responsible adult

relative immediately known and available to provide supervision and care.

■ Is suspected to be a victim of human trafcking by either a caregiver or non-caregiver.

The response commences when the assigned child protective investigator attempts the initial

face-to-face contact with the alleged victim. The system calculates the number of minutes

from the received date and time of the report to the commencement date and time. The min-

utes for all cases are averaged and converted to hours. An initial onsite response is conducted

immediately in situations in which any one of the following allegations are is made: (1) a

child’s immediate safety or well-being is endangered; (2) the family may ee or the child will

be unavailable within 24 hours; (3) institutional abuse or neglect is alleged; (4) an employee

of the department has allegedly committed an act of child abuse or neglect directly related to

the job duties of the employee; (5) a special condition referral (e.g., no maltreatment is alleged

but the child’s circumstances require an immediate response such as emergency hospitaliza-

tion of a parent, etc.); for services; or (6) the facts of the report otherwise so warrant. All

other initial responses must be conducted with an attempted onsite visit with the child victim

within 24 hours.

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 164

Several maltreatments map to “8 - Other” in Florida, including Threatened Harm, Intimate

Partner Violence Threatens Child, Household Threatens Child, and Family Violence

Threatens Child, this will inevitably increase the number of reported in the NCANDS

category of Other maltreatment values.

Children

The NCANDS Child File includes both children alleged to be victims and other children in

the household. The Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS)

identication number eld is populated with the number that would be created for the child

regardless of whether that child has actually been removed and/or reported to AFCARS.

Although the Florida Hotline uses the maltreatment “Threatened Harm” only for narrowly

dened situations, investigators may add this maltreatment to any investigation when they

are unable to document existing harm specic to any maltreatment type, but the information

gathered, and documentation reviewed, yields a preponderance of evidence that the plausible

threat of harm to the child is real and signicant. Threatened Harm is dened as behavior

which is not accidental, and which is likely to result in harm to the child, which leads a pru-

dent person to have reasonable cause to suspect abuse or neglect has occurred or may occur

in the immediate future if no intervention is provided. However, Florida does not typically

add Threatened Harm if actual harm has already occurred due to abuse (willful action) or

neglect (omission which is a serious disregard of parental responsibilities).

Most data captured for child and caregiver risk factors will only be available if there is an

ongoing services case already open at the time the report is received or opened due to the

report.

A reduction in the child intake screen in rate within in the Florida Abuse Hotline resulted in

a decline in the total number of intakes accepted for investigation compared to the previous

year. This reduction has impacted the unique child counts, duplicate victim counts, and

unique perpetrator counts.

Fatalities

Fatality counts include any report closed during the year, even those victims whose dates of

death may have been in a prior year. Only veried abuse or neglect deaths are counted. The

nding was veried when a preponderance of the credible evidence resulted in a determina-

tion that death was the result of abuse or neglect. All suspected child maltreatment fatalities

must be reported for investigation and are included in the Child File. Beginning with the

2021 submission, the maltreatment of “Other” was removed from fatality records leaving

only the other maltreatment(s) in the investigation.

Perpetrators

By Florida statute, perpetrators are only identied as responsible for maltreatment in cases

with veried ndings. Licensed foster parents and non-nalized adoptive parents are mapped

to nonrelative foster parents, although some may be related to the child. Approved relative

caregivers (license not issued) are mapped to the NCANDS category of relative foster parent.

Florida (continued)

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 165

Florida reviews all children veried as abused with a perpetrator relationship of relative

foster parent, nonrelative foster parent, or group home or residential facility staff during the

investigation against actual placement data to validate the child was in one of these place-

ments when the report was received. If it is determined that the child was not in one of these

placements on the report received date, then the perpetrator relationship is mapped to the

NCANDS category of “other.”

Services

Due to the IV-E waiver and a cost pool structure that is based on common activities per-

formed that are funded from various federal and state awards, Florida uses client eligibility

statistics to allocate costs among federal and state funding sources. As such, Florida does not

link individuals receiving specic services to specic funding sources (such as prevention).

Florida (continued)

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 166

Georgia

Contact Michael Fost Phone 404-463-0845

Title Operations Analyst

Division of Family and Children Services

michael.fost@dhs.ga.gov

Address Georgia Department of Human Services

47 Trinity Avenue SW

Atlanta, GA 30334

General

Screened-in maltreatment referrals that are not considered “Special” call types, are directed

to an Initial Safety Assessment, where case managers conduct a preliminary assessment to

determine if there is present or impending danger safety threats. The system determines the

track assignments based on safety threats recorded by the Case Manager. The track assign-

ment can be Investigation or Family Support Services (alternative response), depending on

safety threats recorded.

Special Investigation (Maltreatment in Care and Child Death, Near Fatality and Serious

Injury) cases are immediately assigned to the Investigation stage. Special Circumstances

— No Maltreatment Alleged Intakes are also assigned to the Investigation track, but with

a ve-day response time instead of immediate or one-day. Cases with allegations that are

considered dangerous (sexual abuse, physical abuse, maltreatment in care) are directed

immediately to the investigation pathway. Cases with other allegations undergo an “Initial

Safety Assessment” (ISA). A case worker interviews in person the alleged victim(s) and the

alleged perpetrator(s) at the home. Risk is assessed, and the case is then directed either to an

investigation or, if risk appears low, to the Family Support pathway. Investigations conclude

with a disposition of either substantiated or unsubstantiated, indicating whether a preponder-

ance of evidence supports the allegation(s) or not. Family Support Services cases can be track

assigned to Investigation if safety threats are observed or closed if no threats exist. Both

investigations and Family Support are included in the NCANDS Child File.

A decision to remove children into state custody does not depend on the investigation dis-

position, but on present or impending danger safety threats that indicate the child is unsafe.

Case Managers are required to explore Kinship Arrangements when an Out of Home Safety

Plan is necessary.

Reports

Georgia made changes to intake interviews over the past two years. More information is

gathered through a structured interview process. There were about 10,000 more referrals of

maltreatment in 2022 compared to 2021 and a greater proportion have been screened out.

The components of a CPS report are: (1) a child younger than 18 years; (2) a referral of

conditions indicating child maltreatment; and (3) a known or unknown individual alleged

to be a perpetrator. Referrals that do not contain all three components of a CPS report are

screened out. Screen-outs may include historical incidents, custody issues, poverty issues,

truancy issues, situations involving an unborn child, and/or juvenile delinquency issues. For

many of these, referrals are made to other resources, such as early intervention or prevention

programs.

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 167

Children

The number of unique child victims increased 9.1 percent from 2021 to 2022.

Fatalities

Georgia receives information from partners in the medical eld, law enforcement, Ofce

of the Child Advocate, other agencies, and the general public to identify and evaluate child

fatalities.

Approximately 20 more children died due to maltreatment in the 2022 report than in the 2021

report.

Perpetrators

Prior to July 1, 2016, a ruling of the Georgia Supreme Court prohibited the Division of

Family and Children Services from reporting perpetrator data. Changes in state law allowed

the formation of a Child Abuse Registry in July 2016, and Georgia began to report perpetra-

tor data. The change was accompanied by a decrease in substantiated investigations, perhaps

because of different evidence requirements. In 2020, the state discontinued the Child Abuse

Registry. Perpetrator data is still collected in the SACWIS system, and Georgia continues to

report perpetrator data in NCANDS. The effect, if any, on substantiation rates is not obvious.

Services

The agency does not provide Educational and Training, Family Planning, Daycare,

Information and Referral, or Pregnancy Planning Services for clients. These services would

be provided by referrals to other agencies or community resources. Our SACWIS system

would only track those services paid for by agency funds. However, most services are

provided through referrals to other agencies or community resources.

Georgia (continued)

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 168

Hawaii

Contact Rosaline Tupou Phone 808–586–5711

Title Administrator Hawaii Child Welfare Program

Development

[email protected]

Address Princess Victoria Kamamalu Bldg

1010 Richards Street, Suite 216

Honolulu, HI 96813

The state did not submit commentary for the Child Maltreatment 2022 report.

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 169

Idaho

Contact Robbin Thomas Phone 208–334–5700

Title Research Analyst, Principal

Family and Community Services

robbin.thomas@dhw.idaho.gov

Address Idaho Department of Health and Welfare

450 West State Street, 5th Floor

Boise, ID 83703

General

Idaho does not have an alternative response to screened-in referrals.

Reports

The number of accepted reports of maltreatment declined in the past year. However, there

has not been any practice or policy changes that would account for this change. Idaho has

stafng challenges and the intake unit is doing their best to ensure that if the priority guide-

lines do not clearly apply to the given circumstances, they are screening out where in the past

they may have screened something in.

Idaho has a centralized intake unit which includes a 24-hour telephone line for child welfare

referrals. The intake unit maintains a specially trained staff to answer, document, and pri-

oritize calls, and documentation systems that enable a quicker response and effective quality

assurance. Allegations are screened out and

not assessed when:

■ The alleged perpetrator is not a parent or caregiver for a child, the alleged perpetrator no

longer has access to the child, the child’s parent or caregiver is able to be protective of the

child to prevent the child from further maltreatment, and all allegations that a criminal act

may have taken place have been forwarded to law enforcement.

■ The alleged victim is under 18 years of age and is married.

■ The alleged victim is unborn.

■ The alleged victim is 18 years of age or older at the time of the report, even if the alleged

abuse occurred when the individual was under 18 years of age. If the individual is over 18

years of age, but is vulnerable (physically or mentally disabled), all pertinent information

should be forwarded to Adult Protective Services and law enforcement.

■ There is no current evidence of physical abuse or neglect and/or the alleged abuse, neglect,

or abandonment occurred in the past and there is no evidence to support the allegations.

■ Although Child and Family Services (CFS) recognizes the emotional impact of domestic

violence on children, due to capacity of intake, we only can respond to referrals of

domestic violence that involve a child’s safety. Please see the priority response guidelines

for more information regarding child safety in domestic violence situations. Referrals

alleging that a child is witnessing their parent/caregiver being hurt will be forwarded to

law enforcement for their consideration. Additionally, referents will be given referrals to

community resources.

■ Allegations are that the child’s parents or caregiver use drugs, but there is no reported

connection between drug usage and specic maltreatment of the child. All allegations that

a criminal act may have taken place must be forwarded to law enforcement.

■ Parental lifestyle concerns exist, but don’t result in specic maltreatment of the child.

■ Allegations are that children are neglected as the result of poverty. These referrals should

be assessed as potential service need cases.

■ Allegations are that children have untreated head lice without other medical concerns.

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 170

■ Child custody issues exist, but don’t allege abuse or neglect or don’t meet agency deni-

tions of abuse or neglect.

■ More than one referral describes the identical issues or concerns as described in a previous

referral. Multiple duplicate referrals made by the same referent should be staffed with the

local county multi-disciplinary team for recommendations in planning a response.

More information regarding intake, screening, and priority guideline standards can be found

on the Idaho Health and Welfare website.

The investigation start date is dened as the date and time the child is seen by a Child

Protective Services (CPS) social worker. The date and time are compared against the report

date and time when CPS was notied about the alleged abuse. Idaho reports substantiated,

unsubstantiated: insufcient evidence, and unsubstantiated: erroneous report dispositions.

Children

Idaho has incorporated modications related to policies or procedures in conducting investi-

gations during the past year. These changes enable staff to expedite the formal safety assess-

ment process in cases in which the allegations are determined erroneous. Idaho struggled

with stafng levels this year which impacted staff’s ability to conduct timely investigations.

Idaho’s current practice standard for Expedited Safety Assessment, Comprehensive Safety,

Ongoing, and Re-Assessment requires the social worker to interview all children of con-

cern, all child participants on a report, and any child who falls under the Temporary Child

Resident Standard. The practice standard denes child(ren) participants on a presenting issue

as, “all other children who are not identied as victim(s) of abuse or abandonment which

reside in or visit the home.”

Idaho collected data on sex trafcking victims on all children assessed for neglect, abuse, or

abandonment. In addition, Idaho assesses children in foster care for human trafcking during

child contact visits and when a youth returns from runaway status.

Idaho implemented data collection for prenatal substance exposure in April 2019. When our

centralized intake unit receives a report regarding concerns of a substance affected infant

information is collected regarding the plan of care and services provided. There were no

changes in policies or procedures regarding sex trafcking or referral of infants with prenatal

substance exposure during the pandemic.

All children ages birth to three years old who are involved in cases substantiated for abuse,

neglect and/or abandonment are referred to early intervention services through the Idaho

Infant and Toddler Program. More information regarding Idaho’s standards specic to safety

assessment, mandatory referrals for children birth to three, and human trafcking standards

can be found on the Idaho Health and Welfare website.

Fatalities

There were no changes in policies or procedures regarding child death reviews during the

pandemic. Idaho has a state child fatality review team who was able to make a slight sched-

ule adjustment and continue to meet to ensure reviews were completed as planned during

Idaho (continued)

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 171

the pandemic. Idaho compares fatality data from the Division of Family and Community

Services with the Division of Vital Statistics for all children younger than 18. The Division

of Vital Statistics conrms all fatalities reported by child welfare via the state’s SACWIS and

provides the number of fatalities for all children for whom the cause of death is homicide.

When a report is made to the Centralized Intake Unit, the Priority Response Guidelines

establish requirements for evaluating safety issues within Child and Family Services (CFS)

mandates and are utilized to determine the immediacy of the response timeframes. When

the death of a child is alleged to be due to physical abuse or neglect by the child’s parents,

guardian, or caregiver and reported information indicates there may be safety threats to any

minor siblings remaining in the home, CFS will assess the safety of the other children in the

home with an immediate response.

Perpetrators

Idaho Administrative Code for the purpose of substantiating an individual for abuse,

neglect or abandonment does not dene the age of a suspect or perpetrator. However, for the

purpose of Idaho’s Child Protection Central Registry levels of risk, for an individual to be

to be placed on the Central Registry at the highest level for sexual abuse they must meet the

denition of sexual abuse as dened in Idaho Statute. Idaho Statute 18-1506 includes in the

denition of sexual abuse of a child under the age of sixteen year that it is a felony for any

person eighteen (18) year of age or older. Idaho’s practice is to substantiate suspects who are

over the age of eighteen (18) or are the parent of the victim.

Idaho does report noncaregiver preparators of substantiated cases related to sex trafcking.

Idaho’s other perpetrator relationship is for other relative. We have dened categories for

stepparents, grandparents, and great grandparents therefore other relative is typically used for

aunt, uncle, or cousin or other relative relationships.

Services

Currently, Idaho is unable to report public assistance data due to constraints between Idaho’s

Welfare Information System and CCWIS. Idaho has had no changes in preventive funding.

Federal initiatives through CAA and ARPA provide additional funding to support youth who

may have aged of foster care to remain in foster care and/or receive additional services to

help them successful transition to adulthood. Idaho utilized contractors service providers and

community service providers and/or agencies to provide services to families and children.

Idaho (continued)

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 172

Illinois

Contact Jennifer Eblen-Manning Phone 708–338–6618

Title Deputy Director

Quality Assurance

jennifer[email protected]

Address Department of Children and Family Services

1701 S. First Ave, 10th Floor Rm 1060

Maywood, IL 60153

General

Currently Illinois does not have a Differential Response pathway. The Illinois NCANDS

Child File contains reports of child abuse/neglect that resulted from a hotline call meeting

the standards of abuse/neglect as dened in department procedure 300.30(a)(1) Criteria for a

Report of Abuse or Neglect.

Illinois DCFS launched a Streamlined Online System for Reporting of Non-Emergency

Child Abuse and Neglect in October 2020. This system makes it easier for everyone to le a

report of suspected abuse or neglect.

Reports

The following criteria must be met for a report of abuse or neglect to be taken:

■ The alleged child victim must be under 18 years of age or be between the ages of 18–22

while living in a DCFS licensed facility.

■ There must be an incident of harm or a set of circumstances that would lead a reasonable

person to suspect that a child was abused or neglected as interpreted in the allegation

denitions contained in Procedures 300, Appendix B; and

■ The person committing the action or failure to act must be an eligible perpetrator:

• For a report of suspected abuse, the alleged perpetrator must be the child’s parent,

immediate family member, any individual who resides in the same home as the child,

any person who is responsible for the child’s welfare at the time of the incident, a

paramour of the child’s parent, or any person who came to know the child through an

ofcial capacity or is in a position of trust.

• For a report of suspected neglect, the alleged perpetrator must be the child’s parent or

any other person who was responsible for care of the child at the time of the alleged

neglect.

The Illinois DCFS procedures allow taking multiple reports on the same child abuse and

neglect incident when there are multiple perpetrators that either do not reside in the same

residence or reside in the same residence as a child victim but are part of separate and inde-

pendent families. In these situations, there are separate reports taken for each perpetrator.

The number of reports for FFY 2022 show an increase compared to FFY 2021, which

appears to be related to the school districts returning to in class learning during the reporting

period. With the resumption of in class learning, Illinois data reects the number of reports

made by education personnel increased which accounts for 85 percent of increase in the

unique reports.

Since the start of the pandemic, the Child Abuse/Neglect Hotline has never shutdown, staff

transitioned to working from home after the Governor issued the stay home order. There

were no changes to criteria for screening calls of abuse/neglect. COVID-19 screening

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 173

questions were added, consistent with CDC and IDPH (Illinois Department of Public Health)

guidance for worker safety in responding to reports of abuse/neglect.

Illinois reports “nonmandated reporters” to the NCANDS report source category of “other”.

The state does not collect any subtype information. The state’s online system is a self-

reported report source.

Children

Illinois uses the allegation of Substance Misuse to report on infants with prenatal substance

exposure among other types of substance misuse for children and youth.

Illinois has an allegation of Human Trafcking, which, according to the federal law, is

dened as twofold:

“sex trafcking in which a commercial sex act is induced by force, fraud, or coercion, or

in which the person induced to perform such act has not attained 18 years of age; or the

recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, obtaining, patronizing or soliciting of

a person for labor or services, through the use of force, fraud, or coercion for the purpose

of subjection to involuntary servitude, peonage, debt bondage or slavery.” [22 U.S.C.

§7102(8)]

For the purpose of a child abuse/neglect investigation, force, fraud, or coercion need not be

present. Incidents of Maltreatment:

■ Labor exploitation (ABUSE).

■ Commercial sexual exploitation (i.e., prostitution, the production of pornography or sexu-

ally explicit performance) (ABUSE).

■ Blatant disregard of a caregiver’s responsibilities that resulted in a child being trafcked

(NEGLECT).

Since Illinois’s denition of sex trafcking is a part of a broader denition of Human

Trafcking that also includes labor exploitation and blatant disregard of a caregiver’s respon-

sibilities, it is mapped to the NCANDS maltreatment type 8 — Other. Illinois procedure

related to Human Trafcking was updated on 9/16/2022 to collect data specic to Human

Labor Trafcking Abuse allegation, Human Sex Trafcking Abuse allegation, Blatant

disregard of a caregiver’s responsibilities that result in Human Labor Trafcking Neglect

allegation, and Blatant disregard of a caregiver’s responsibilities that result in Human Sex

Trafcking Neglect allegation. Illinois is working to ensure it can collect and produce data on

these new elements out of SACWIS.

Currently, Illinois reports child risk factors for youth with prior or current foster care

involvement only.

Fatalities

Illinois DCFS procedures allow for multiple reports on the same child abuse and neglect

incident (fatal incidents included) to be taken when there are multiple perpetrators that either

do not reside in the same residence or reside in the same residence as the child victim, but

are of separate and independent families. In these situations, there are separate reports taken

for each perpetrator. This policy has the potential to report the same child fatality in multiple

Illinois (continued)

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 174

reporting cycles if the disposition (nal nding) dates occur in different reporting cycles. No

other data system or agencies are used to compile and report child fatalities due to suspected

abuse or neglect.

In Illinois, mandated reporters are required to report suspected child abuse or neglect imme-

diately (fatal incidents included) when they have “reasonable cause to believe” that a child

known to them in their professional or ofcial capacity may be an abused or neglected child”.

(325 ILCS 5/4) Reports are made by calling the DCFS Child Abuse Hotline. Mandated

reporters include, but are not limited to, medical personnel, law enforcement personnel,

coroners, medical examiners, and funeral home directors.

Perpetrators

The state makes a dispositional allegation-based determination for perpetrators for alleged

victim. The Illinois Abused and Neglected Child Reporting Act (ANCRA) [325 ILCS 5/5] and

Rule 300, Reports of Child Abuse and Neglect, does not set a minimum age for a perpetra-

tor, except for Allegation #10 – Substantial Risk pf Physical Injury (minimum age of 16),

therefore any case involving a young perpetrator must be assessed on an individual basis

according to the dynamics of the case.

The state is currently unable to report caregiver risk factors.

Services

Illinois case-management services include intact family and foster care services. The state

contracts 70 percent–80 percent of its casework to community-based provider agencies.

The Intact Family Services program is designed to work with families voluntarily who have

come to the attention of the Department of Children and Family Services: 1) as a result of

an indicated nding from a child abuse/neglect investigation, 2) as a result of an unfounded

investigation if approved by the Ofce of Intact Family Services, or 3) involuntarily when

ordered by the court to provide services as dened in Procedures 302.388. There are 5 target

populations served by Family First Prevention Services and intact family services is the

largest group.

Illinois (continued)

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 175

Indiana

Contact Kara Riley Phone 765–431–0851

Title Data Analyst–Federal Reporting Project Manager Email

kara.riley@dcs.in.gov

Address Indiana Department of Child Services

Ofce of Data Management

302 W. Washington St, Room E306–MS47

Indianapolis, IN 46204–2739

General

Indiana has engaged in continuous improvement efforts to rene the data collection and

mapping process through system modications and overall enhancement. The Management

Gateway for Indiana’s Kids (MaGIK) is an ever-evolving, umbrella system which has further

incorporated services, billing, case management, and the overall data management, organiza-

tion, and extraction components.

Reports

The Indiana Department of Child Services (DCS) does not assign for assessment a referral of

alleged child abuse or neglect that does not:

■ Meet the statutory denition of child abuse and neglect; and/or

■ Contain sufcient information to either identify or locate the child and/or family and

initiate an assessment (Indiana Policy Manual 3.6).

As of January 1, 2018, the Hotline ceased automatically recommending assessment of all

reports with alleged victims under the age of three years old.

As of July 1, 2019, a change in legislation increased the 1-hour response time to 2-hours.

Effective June 1, 2021, DCS Hotline modied its standardized worker safety questions. DCS

also partnered with the Capacity Building Center for States as well as ran internal events

targeted at reducing our screen-in rate. DCS made decision modications on types of reports

to screen out that include, but are not limited to:

■ “Sexting” concerns among adolescents, effective October 1, 2020.

■ Pre-adolescent children exhibiting potentially sexually maladaptive behaviors, effective

January 1, 2021.

■ Marijuana use only reports with children 3 and older, effective April 1, 2021.

■ Educational neglect, effective August 16, 2021.

Effective June 1, 2021, every screen-out report (including child fatalities and near fatalities)

will be reviewed by one hotline supervisor, then sent to the local DCS ofces, where one

member of management will be designated to make the nal determination within 24 hours.

DCS Hotline also ceased doing the additional screen out review for children under 3.

Effective February 28, 2022, a practice change was implemented where DCS Hotline would

no longer document certain reports that provide no value. Examples include wrong numbers,

immediate disconnects, internal DCS conversations, or simply transferring a call to another

worker within the Hotline.

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 176

Children

Indiana continues to work with its eld staff responsible for entering reports and completing

assessments and emphasizing the importance of entering all applicable data, including child

risk factors. Indiana completes daily Assessment Stafngs between eld workers and super-

visors, which emphasizes ensuring the safety of children as quickly as possible.

In FFY 2021, Indiana streamlined their assessment completion processes for SafeACT

assessments (where all children in the assessment are deemed clearly safe) and Professional

Service Requests. Streamlining these processes should allow workers to initiate and complete

all assessments more timely.

Fatalities

All data regarding child fatalities are submitted exclusively in the Child File. Fatality counts

for the FFY are based on the date of an approved, substantiated, fatality assessment. DCS

completes a review of all child fatalities that t the following circumstances:

■ Children under the age of 3: the child’s death is sudden, unexpected or unexplained, or

there are allegations of abuse or neglect;

■ Children age 3 or older: the child’s death involves allegations of abuse or neglect.

Reports for fatalities can be made from multiple sources, including DCS, law enforcement,

re investigator, emergency medical personnel, coroners, the health department, or hospitals.

Reports can be made from these sources related to drownings, poisonings/overdoses, asphyx-

iation, etc., which may include accidents. It is the intention for these reporting standards not

only to be used to determine if abuse or neglect was involved but also as an evaluation tool to

inform practice.

Perpetrators

Indiana launched a new intake system in February 2016 that better aligns with the system

used for completing assessments and case management cases. This has allowed for more

accurate perpetrator data entry.

Services

Improvements in data collection allowed Indiana to report prevention data by child.

Therefore, to not duplicate counts, Indiana does not provide prevention data on a family level.

In FFY 2021, a CBCAP COVID grant was added as a separate federal funding source,

which allowed Indiana to serve more children. On June 1, 2020, Indiana Family Preservation

Service was launched. This service is required to be referred on all new in-home child/chil-

dren in need of services (CHINS) and informal adjustments (IA). This service is a per diem

that encompasses all services that the family needs to remain safely in the home with their

caregivers.

Indiana (continued)

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 177

Iowa

Contact Lynda Miller Phone 515-377-0390

itle

Management Analyst 3

Bureau of Quality Assurance & Improvement

[email protected]

Address Iowa Department of Health and Human Services

PO Box 4826, Des Moines, IA 50305

General

Iowa has two types of responses to screened-in referrals/reports of suspected abuse. Our

traditional pathway is called a child abuse assessment and the alternative response pathway

is called a family assessment. The child abuse assessment pathway requires a determination

of abuse and a determination of whether criteria for placement on the Registry are met. The

family assessment pathway identies family strengths and needs, connects the family to the

appropriate services needed, and does not include a determination of abuse or a determina-

tion of whether criteria for placement on the Registry are met. Data from both pathways are

reported to NCANDS.

A signicant number of Iowa laws impacted state policies and procedures that in turn may

have affected FFY 2022 data to NCANDS, including the following which were effective July

1, 2022:

■ Safe haven laws were extended from a newborn infant who is or appears to be thirty

days of age or younger to a newborn infant who is or appears to be ninety days of age or

younger.

■ Massage therapists were added to the list of mandatory reporters of both child and depen-

dent adult abuse.

■ A requirement that an allegation of Denial of Critical Care or an allegation of Dangerous

Substance to be reported within ve years to qualify as child abuse.

■ The removal of a requirement for a written report of suspected abuse to be submitted

within 48 hours of the oral report and maintains that only an oral report is required.

■ Amendments to CINA proceeding, including:

• A requirement that the GAL must be an attorney and not a CASA,

• An addition of “objective criteria” to be used in GAL recommendations,

• A presumption it is in the best interest of children 10 years and older to attend court,

• Allows for removal of “domestic abusers” from the residence pursuant to a court order,

• An underscoring of the harm caused by removal of a child and that it must be weighed

against the potential harm in allowing a child to remain with the child’s family,

• A prioritization of relatives and ctive kin as preferred placements,

• Providing notice to adult relatives, even if the custody is not transferred to the Iowa

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS),

• Permission for HHS to share information necessary to explore potential relative

placement,

• A focus on family interaction even when parents fail to comply with court require-

ments, so long as it’s not detrimental to the child, and

• Reasonable efforts to place siblings together.

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 178

Reports

The number of suspected reports of abuse decreased slightly in FFY 2022. This decrease was

small and not a difference of 10 percent or more. The law change which requires an allega-

tion of Denial of Critical Care or an allegation of Dangerous Substance to be reported within

ve years to qualify as child abuse took effect on July 1, 2022, and may have been a factor in

this slight decrease. However, the law change was implemented toward the end of FFY 2022

and it would have only impacted the last three months of data.

Additionally, new staff were hired and trained with an expansion in the hours of operation for

Iowa’s Centralized Service Intake Unit (CSIU)/abuse hotline. CSIU transitioned to a 24-hour

unit in January 2021, so by the start of FFY 2022, there were an addition of 21 staff who

had been in their positions for less than 10 months. This increase in new intake staff is not

believed to have impacted the number of screened in referrals.

Children

The number of victims of abuse decreased slightly in FFY 2022. This decrease was small.

While it’s unknown what contributed to the slight decrease, barriers to collecting and reporting

data for infants with prenatal substance exposure remains a topic of discussion. A lack of com-

mon understanding and application of what constitutes “infant affected” has led to confusion

around what medical providers feel they should be reporting and how child welfare staff should

be responding. Policies and procedures have not changed regarding the referral of infants with

prenatal substance exposure, but conversations with medical provider partners have increased

and trainings with child welfare staff have increased in attempt to assure these infants are being

identied and Safe Plans of Care are created for them and their caregivers.

Fatalities

While Iowa’s Child Death Review Team does review all fatalities of children that were

sudden, unexpected, or nonnatural deaths, Iowa Agency File fatalities are collected from data

maintained internally by the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Infant/

child deaths are only assessed by HHS when there is an allegation of abuse.

The number of child maltreatment fatalities increased signicantly in FFY 2022. While the

total number was not more than 10, this difference was more than a 50 percent increase,

jumping from twelve child maltreatment fatalities in FFY 2021 to nineteen in FFY 2022.

Fatalities related to unsafe sleep made up the majority of this increase. With the awareness of

safe sleep recommendations on the rise and the number of those cases which include sub-

stance use by the parent/caretaker, it is no surprise that we are seeing an increase in fatalities

resulting from unsafe sleep.

Looking at this data in total, nineteen child fatalities were the result of abuse or abuse as

a contributing factor. A state review of the maltreatment death data indicated unsafe sleep

made up over one-third (seven) of all child maltreatment deaths, involving infants between 10

days and 6 months of age. In ve of these instances, a parent or older sibling was co-sleeping

with the infant on an adult bed or couch/recliner. The other two instances involved unregu-

lated in-home childcare providers, one who placed an infant on an adult bed to sleep and

another who placed an infant on their stomach in a pack and play to sleep.

Iowa (continued)

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 179

Physical Abuse attributed to nearly one-quarter (four) of all child maltreatment deaths.

Strikingly, all four of these physical abuse incidents were caused by a parent (one, which also

included a paramour of the child’s mother). The physical abuse incidents involved children

between 19 days and 2 years of age.

Drownings accounted for three of all child maltreatment deaths, involving children between

9 months and 2 years of age, with one occurring in a residential pool and the other two in a

bathtub. The persons responsible in all three of the drowning incidents were parents.

The ve remaining child maltreatments deaths were single cases of inadequate medical

care, motor vehicle accident, suicide, accidental gunshot, and asphyxiation. These incidents

involved ve children between 1 year and 13 years of age. In these incidents, three of the

persons responsible were parents, one was a foster parent, and one was an unregulated in-

home childcare provider. When considering whether any child maltreatment deaths included

a history of HHS assessment or services, it was determined that eight of the nineteen child

maltreatment deaths had both assessment and service history, six of the nineteen had assess-

ment history only (no service history), and ve of the nineteen had no assessment or service

histor y.

Perpetrators

Perpetrators in Iowa include individuals of any age who have caregiver responsibilities at the

time of the alleged abuse, or a person 14 years of age or older who sexually abuses a child

they reside with, or a person who engages in or allows child sex trafcking. This denition,

in accordance with federal regulation, denes any perpetrator of child sex trafcking as a

perpetrator of child abuse and therefore, includes data in NCANDS reporting for persons

who may otherwise be considered noncaregivers.

In FFY 2022, the incidents of abuse perpetrated by a childcare provider increased by more

than 200 percent. The logic for perpetrator information did not change and there is no clear

explanation for this dramatic increase. Factors may include an increase in children’s mental

health issues that result in increased behaviors, under trained staff, increased substantia-

tions of abuse due to non-compliance with regulatory rules, and seeing a rise in numbers of

children returning to childcare since the height of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Services

Iowa has both preventative and post-response services. Preventative services, referred to as

Non-Agency Voluntary Services, are available on a voluntary basis to families following an

assessment where abuse is not substantiated or abuse is conrmed (substantiated, but not

placed on the central abuse registry) and there is low or moderate risk. These services are

provided through contracts with external partners to strive to keep children safe from abuse,

keep families intact, prevent the need for future involvement from the child welfare system,

and to build ongoing connection to community-based resources.

Postresponse services, referred to as Family Centered Services, are required for families

where abuse is conrmed (substantiated, but not placed on the central abuse registry) and

there is high risk or for families where abuse is founded (substantiated, and placed on the

central abuse registry) and the risk is low, moderate, or high. These services are provided

Iowa (continued)

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 180

through contracts with external partners and managed by the Iowa’s child welfare agency

to offer a exible array of culturally sensitive interventions and supports (including Family

Preservation Services, Solution Based Casework, and SafeCare), to achieve safety and

permanency for children and their families.

Iowa (continued)

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 181

Kansas

Contact Ashley Johnson Phone 785–380–6445

Title Deputy Director of Performance Improvement Email

ashleyr[email protected]

Address Prevention & Protection Services

Department for Children & Families

555 S Kansas Avenue

Topeka, KS 66603

General

In the event there is no concern of maltreatment, but an assessment and referral from DCF

may be necessary, Kansas does have a non-abuse/non-neglect category of case assignment

called Family in Need of Assessment (FINA). FINA cases are not counted as screened-out

reports. They are screened in, but as FINA as opposed to Abuse/Neglect (maltreatment).

Reports

Reasons for screening out allegations of child abuse and neglect include:

■ Initial assessment of reported information does not meet the statutory denition: Report

does not contain information that indicates abuse and neglect allegations according to

Kansas law or agency policy.

■ Report fails to provide the information necessary to locate child: Report doesn’t provide

an address, adequate identifying information to search for a family, a school where a child

might be attending, or any other available means to locate a child.

■ The Department of Children and Families (DCF) does not have authority to proceed or

has a conict of interest if: Incidents occur on a Native American reservation or military

installation; alleged perpetrator is a DCF employee; alleged incident took place in an

institution operated by DCF or Kansas Department of Corrections – Juvenile Services

(KDOC-JS); or alleged victim is age 18 or older.

■ Incident has been or is being assessed by DCF or law enforcement: Previous report with

the same allegations, same victims, and same perpetrators has been assessed or is cur-

rently being assessed by DCF or law enforcement.

Children

The decrease in the number of child victims compared to last year may be partially attrib-

uted to updating the Kansas Protection Reporting Center (KPRC) processes including

Structured Decision Making (SDM) denitions as well as education and training to KPRC

staff. KPRC staff have received updated training on how SDM is applied, Risk Intelligence,

and Questions that Make a Difference. KPRC leadership and staff have received additional

coaching throughout the year on SDM and how to utilize the updated SDM denitions.

Kansas has also implemented the Kansas Practice Model statewide and focused on the issue

of poverty vs. neglect (for example, a child who may have been an alleged victim of Physical

Neglect may instead be an identied child on a Family in Need of Assessment case and

receive an assessment and referral for services if warranted).

Kansas is also working diligently to provide education and resources to communities includ-

ing educators and other mandated reporters on ways to best support children and families

when DCF interventions may not be necessary, which includes connecting families to

community-based services. In the event there is no concern of maltreatment, but an assess-

ment and referral from DCF may be necessary, Kansas does have a non-abuse/non-neglect

category of case assignment called Family in Need of Assessment (FINA). FINA cases are

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 182

not counted as screened out reports. They are screened in, but as FINA as opposed to Abuse/

Neglect (maltreatment). Case assignments have decreased as a whole, which is also likely

why we are seeing a decrease in the total number of unique child victims.

Fatalities

Kansas uses data from the Family and Child Tracking System (FACTS) to report fatalities to

NCANDS. Maltreatment ndings recorded in FACTS on child fatalities are made from joint

investigations with law enforcement. The investigation from law enforcement and any report

from medical examiner’s ofce would be used to determine if the child’s fatality was caused

by maltreatment. The Kansas Child Death Review Board reviews all child deaths in the state

of Kansas. Child fatalities reported to NCANDS are child deaths because of maltreatment.

Reviews completed by the state child death review are completed after all the investigations,

medical examiner’s results, and any other information related to the death is made available.

The review by this board does not take place at the time of death or during the investigation

of death. The state’s vital statistics reports on aggregate data are not information specic to

an individual child’s death.

Perpetrators

Kansas does report noncaregiver perpetrators of sex trafcking. Kansas has a minimum

age of 10 years for a child to be considered an alleged perpetrator of maltreatment. The

NCANDS category of “other” perpetrator relationship includes the state category of not

related.

Services

Kansas does not capture information on court-appointed representatives. However, Kansas

statute (K.S.A. 38-2205) requires the child to have a court-appointed attorney (GAL).

Kansas has placed an emphasis on child and family well-being and prevention services in

recent years. This has included implementation of the Kansas Practice Model, Family First

Prevention Services, Family Resource Centers, a mobile crisis service for children and youth

experiencing a mental health crisis, and advisory councils that partner with the voices of

those directly impacted by services. Kansas DCF provides many of these prevention services

as well as foster care case management through contracts or grants awarded to other organi-

zations who provide direct services to children and families.

Kansas (continued)

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 183

Kentucky

Contact Melanie Day Phone 502-564-7635

Title Quality Assurance Branch Manager

Protection and Permanency

melanie.day@ky.gov

Address Department of Community Based Services

275 East Main Street 3E-A Frankfort KY 40621

General

Kentucky does not currently have a true alternative or differential response. assessment

worker (investigation worker) makes an (investigation response (IR) or family in need of

services response determination at the completion of the assessment (investigation).

Kentucky has the following dispositional ndings for investigations/assessments: fatality/

near fatality substantiated, found/substantiated, substantiated, unsubstantiated, and services

needed. For the purposes of NCANDS reporting, services needed is mapped to the NCANDS

disposition of “other.” Kentucky currently does not map a dispositional nding to alternative

response. Kentucky has begun the tasks associated with implementation of a true alternative

response system. With full implementation of an alternative response statewide, the depart-

ment anticipates a decrease in the number of past due investigations/assessments. Alternative

response is anticipated to be implemented by 2024.

Kentucky’s business practice does allow multiple maltreatment levels to be present in a

single report. For example, one report could have a disposition/nding of unsubstantiated and

services needed if it was determined that maltreatment did not occur, but the family needed

services from the agency.

Reports

Each of the nine service regions in Kentucky houses a central intake (CI) team which oper-

ates the statewide abuse and neglect reporting system. Due to the high volume of reports and

population size, Jefferson County has two CI teams. All ten CI teams are housed under one

statewide branch focused on serving their respective service region.

The CI phone system allows teams to “share” call volume by serving consumers across

regional boundaries. The statewide hotline number rst directs calls based on area codes to

the corresponding service region. If all lines for that service region are busy, the call then

bounces over to the next available CI team member statewide. This has improved customer

experience via shorter wait times, increased service efciency, and expanded coverage to

meet business needs.

The statewide call platform was implemented in July 2019 with all teams online by March

2020. A partnership with Seven Counties Services, Kentucky’s after-hours hotline operator,

began in 2022 and was implemented January 2023. This expanded the number of employees

and ensured more calls were answered in a timely manner. The PureCloud phone system

used by DCBS’s CI staff became available for Seven Counties Services hotline employees

as of February 2023. All staff using the same platform allows DCBS staff to easily reference

and pull detailed data on the number of calls, wait times, staff averages, and performance.

The PureCloud system also allows Kentucky to track metrics such as call volume, wait times,

call times, call recording for coaching and mentoring opportunities, etc. Additional stored

information may be revisited for delity matters or staff training.

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 184

To slow down the intake process and gather the information needed to make better decisions for

assessing reports for acceptance, the Department took steps to enhance the skills of intake staff

through the implementation of the Structured Decision Making® (SDM®) Intake Assessment

Tool. The intake assessment is consensus-based, meaning it is designed to operationalize

Kentucky’s standards of practice (SOP) and statute in a decision support tool. Through training

and practice guidance, intake staff will be able to slow down the intake process to thoroughly

review each intake to ensure each adequately meets acceptance criteria and have the supportive

guidance to go through each section of intake criteria with specic denitions while evaluating

the report. This will assist in decreasing the number of false positive acceptances (referrals that

are incorrectly accepted for investigation), consequently reducing staff burden.

The SDM® Intake Assessment Tool was released for staff use on April 2, 2022. The DCBS

Training Branch received a training of trainer’s session in February 2022. This allowed

DCBS Training Branch staff time to create and implement trainings for frontline staff of

the intake assessment. The SDM® vendor, Evident Change, trained central intake staff on

the SDM® Intake Assessment Tool March 8-18, 2022. The DCBS Training Branch provided

29 training sessions around the SDM® Intake Assessment Tool throughout the month of

April to all Kentucky frontline staff and supervisors to ensure all staff understand the intake

assessment and updated policies.

Efforts to address staff turnover and decrease caseloads to stabilize the workforce have

continued. Regional retention committees are operational in all regions. Alternative work

schedules have been operationalized in several pilot areas throughout the state and discus-

sions are occurring regarding expansion. Current plans are underway to allow for more staff

the option to telecommute or work a hybrid schedule that would allow partial telecommuting

and partial time in the ofce. Along with pay raises in December 2021, May 2022, and July

2022, several long overdue pay grade changes were enacted as part of a larger plan to address

the Department’s pay equity issues. This issue will not be solved short term but rather over

the process of several years. Kentucky is only in the initial stages of addressing its pay equity

issues that it has attributed to its staff turnover.

The Child Protection Branch completed revisions of Standards of Practice (SOP) Online

Manual Chapter 2- Child Protective Services (CPS) Intake and Investigation to align with

changes resulting from the new intake tool release and to better align with current regula-

tions. CPS workforce data for Kentucky only includes full-time equivalents (FTEs).

The state does not collect in-depth information regarding the number of children who are

screened out for referrals that do not meet criteria for abuse or neglect. In January 2018, the

state implemented new response times based upon the safety threats and risk factors identi-

ed by the reporting source. For example, two reports both alleging sexual abuse may cur-

rently have different response times based upon the perpetrator’s current location and access

to the victim. Prior to this change, each maltreatment type had a single response time, e.g.,

all reports alleging sexual abuse had a response time of one hour. The response times were

overall increased with this change, as reports identied as low or no risk were previously

assigned a response time of 48 hours, but now may have up to 72 hours, which likely is the

cause of the continued increase to average response time in this submission. In addition, the

Kentucky (continued)

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 185

responsibility of determining response times during normal business hours was transferred

from eld staff supervisors to centralized intake supervisors.

Children

An overall decrease for child victims was observed between FFY 2021 and FFY 2022.

Kentucky has worked diligently over the past several years to implement a safety model

which includes the implementation of SDM® Intake Assessment Tool and a thorough review

and modication of the state’s acceptance criteria to ensure a focus upon children and fami-

lies with true safety threats versus risk factors. This shift in the approach to the work may

have contributed to the decrease in child victims this year. Kentucky’s SOP 2.11-Investigation

Protocol indicates unannounced face-to-face interviews should be completed with all house-

hold members including all other children in the home.

In 2022, Kentucky revised program areas specically related to human trafcking allega-

tions to ensure non-caretaker reports were accepted appropriately. This change was made

to fulll federal reporting requirements to differentiate between sex trafcking and labor

trafcking, and to ensure proper identication of caretaker vs. non-caretaker perpetrators.

The revised program/subprograms are now Human Trafcking-Sexual-Caretaker, Human

Trafcking-Labor-Caretaker, Human Trafcking-Sexual-Non-caretaker, and Human

Trafcking-Labor-Non-caretaker.

Findings of Human Trafcking Conrmed or Human Trafcking Not Conrmed are associ-

ated with non-caretaker reports of human trafcking. Non-caretaker reports of human

trafcking cannot receive a substantiated nding, therefore, alleged perpetrators will not

receive a Notication of Findings Letter. Non-caretaker perpetrators do not have due process

to le an appeal as outlined in 922 KAR 1:300 Child protective services.

The Department updated its CCWIS screens in 2022 to indicate whether an individual is a

victim of human trafcking, as well as to distinguish between labor and sex trafcking. The

Department publishes an annual human trafcking report to the LRC, which includes data

on demographics, trends, and case ndings regarding human trafcking reports. Across the

state, community partners utilize the report to guide practice for service delivery to victims

of human trafcking. The report is posted online annually and can be found on the division’s

public facing website.

Kentucky began capturing safe care plan data and referral to appropriate services in FFY

2019. FFY 2022 is Kentucky’s third full year of reporting for infants with prenatal substance

exposure. Kentucky’s Plan Of Safe Care SOP can be found at SOP 1.15-Working with

Families Affected by Substance Misuse.

Fatalities

Kentucky has a Systems Safety Review (SSR) team which reviews all cases involving a

child fatality in an active CPS case and/or accepted as an investigation with the fatality/

near fatality designation. An initial review is completed by a system safety analyst and is

then presented to the multi-disciplinary team (MDT) for consideration of a comprehensive

analysis. The state investigates only child fatalities that are a result of maltreatment.

Kentucky (continued)

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 186

The state uses CCWIS to capture information on child fatalities related to maltreatment.

For every fatality investigated as a possible death caused by maltreatment, the investiga-

tor obtains a copy of the ofcial death certicate and autopsy conducted by the medical

examiner from the Department of Public Health (DPH). The investigator incorporates this

information into decision making around the investigative ndings, as well as case disposi-

tion. A discussion of the contents of these documents is included in the assessment entered

into CCWIS. These documents, as well as any additional documents such as those produced

by law enforcement, are maintained in the case le.

Perpetrators

The number of perpetrators in Kentucky decreased by 16.9 percent in FFY 2022. Kentucky

has worked diligently over the past several years to implement a safety model which includes

the implementation of SDM® Intake Assessment Tool and a thorough review and modica-

tion of the state’s acceptance criteria to ensure a focus upon children and families with true

safety threats versus risk factors. This shift in the approach to the work may have contributed

to the decrease in perpetrators this year.

Kentucky’s SOP 2.3-Acceptance Criteria states: A report that meets child abuse, neglect, or

dependency criteria which involves an alleged perpetrator between the age of twelve (12)

and seventeen (17) years old who is in a caretaking role will be accepted. If substantiated,

the child aged twelve (12) to seventeen (17) will be identied as the perpetrator.

Kentucky reports Perp REL as 88-other for non-caregivers. DCBS will only accept reports

involving a non-caretaker as a perpetrator if the report involves allegations of human traf-

cking and/or female genital mutilation. SOP 2.3-Acceptance Criteria also states: Child sex

trafcking when a non-caretaker is the alleged perpetrator involves any sex act involving

a minor in exchange for anything of value. This includes but is not limited to cash, drugs,

jewelry, clothing, food, shelter, protection, or transportation. This could also include the

offer or intent to exchange something of value for sexual favors.

Services

Kentucky had the opportunity to expand Family Preservation Program (FPP) services further

to serve more families and train further in Family First Prevention Services Act (FFPSA)

evidence-based practices (EBPs), through use of state general funds in calendar year (CY)

2022. FPP expanded in calendar year 2022 to serve additional families through an open

solicitation, allowing for providers to submit proposals including budgetary needs to address

barriers to stafng capacity. Additionally, the agency’s budget biennium request included an

ask for an additional $11,491,000 in funding for state scal year (SFY) 2023, and an addi-

tional $16,323,000 in funding for SFY 2024.

As a result of advocacy efforts for greater focus on prevention, DCBS received an additional

$20 million appropriation of state general funds to be utilized for prevention services in SFY

2022, allowing expansion of the Kentucky Strengthening Ties and Empowering Parents

(KSTEP) program.

Parent engagement meetings (PEMs) were implemented in 11 rural areas in calendar year

2022 thanks to additional prevention state general funds and Community-Based Child Abuse

Kentucky (continued)

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 187

Prevention (CBCAP) funding through the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA). Discussions

among DCBS leadership continue regarding the prioritization of funding for all prevention

services, including PEMs.

Kentucky received a grant award in the amount of $7.9M to support FFPSA implementation.

The department originally intended to use these funds for FPP expansion. The Consolidated

Appropriations Act granted 100 percent federal reimbursement to states for FFPSA EBPs

through 9/30/2021. Twenty million dollars ($20M) was also appropriated from state general

funds to the department for FFPSA through SFY 2022. Therefore, grant funds were no

longer needed. A portion of these funds was used to support Qualied Residential Treatment

Program (QRTP) implementation in the form of stipends to QRTP providers struggling

nancially due to pandemic related challenges, including stafng. The remaining balance of

$5,768,487 in Family First Transition Act (FFTA) funds must be used by 9/30/2025. This is

100 percent federally funded and cannot be used for services for which a title IV-E claim will

also be submitted.

Activities for title IV-E EBP identication were successful but require ongoing assessment

of the needs of Kentucky families and plan amendment to make changes as needed. A Title

IV-E State Prevention Plan amendment was approved in CY 2021, to include expanded use

of motivational interviewing (MI) and High-Fidelity Wraparound. Another amendment was

submitted to the Children’s Bureau in March 2022 to add Intercept as an EBP, with approval

pending.

The Department is using supplemental funding to provide additional services and supports

to families across the state. Supplemental CBCAP funding has been used to expand services

under Community Collaboration for Children (CCC), which is available in all parts of the

state but especially critical in rural areas where other services may be sparse. The goal is

to decrease CCC in-home services waitlists, provide concrete supports for families, expand

PEMs, and enhance primary prevention efforts through the local regional networks.

Kentucky is one of the jurisdictions selected for the Thriving Families, Safer Children

initiative. These supplemental CBCAP funds will support this initiative. CBCAP aligns

with Thriving Families, Safer Children for primary and secondary prevention. The goal in

Kentucky will be to increase the availability of supports, services, and resources within local

communities to assist families in becoming successful in raising safe and healthy children,

while enhancing the well-being of families. The funds must be obligated by September 30,

2025 and liquidated by December 30, 2025.

Kentucky invested $9.5 million in tertiary prevention services from SFY 2019 to present,

along with leveraging partnerships with other agencies to serve target populations. Sobriety

Treatment and Recovery Teams (START) and KSTEP both expanded through partnership

with the Kentucky Opioid Response Effort (KORE) through funding from the Department

for Behavioral Health, Developmental and Intellectual Disabilities (DBHDID) Substance

Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) grant to serve geographic

areas of need and additional families. Both programs were sustained beyond the title IV-E

waiver demonstration project to assist Kentucky families affected by substance use disorder;

cases often resulting in removal absent these services. KSTEP expanded from four counties

Kentucky (continued)

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 188

to eight counties, from eight to 15, and an entire service region, since SFY 2019, with plans to

expand to two additional service regions. Kentucky also expanded in CY 2021 to include an

additional prevention pilot to deliver Multisystemic Therapy (MST) in two service regions,

with plans for two additional providers in two additional service areas.

Many of Kentucky’s prevention services are provided by contracted service providers. As

identied in the ve-year FFPSA Prevention Plan, children meeting Kentucky’s foster care

candidacy denition total over 27,000, with Kentucky having the capacity to meet 1/5 of the

need with contracted prevention services. Kentucky continues to pursue diligent efforts to

expand child welfare contracted prevention services, including stakeholder partnership and

advocacy for additional funding from the legislature.

Kentucky (continued)

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 189

Louisiana

Contact Steven Lane Phone 318–676–7800

Title Business Analytics Specialist Email

steven.lane.dcfs@la.gov

Address Department of Children and Family Services

1525 Faireld Avenue, Room 874

Shreveport, LA 71101–4388

General

The Louisiana Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) continues to review and

revise the methodology used to extract the Child File. These changes often reect system

enhancements that have been completed since the previous submission, requiring updates to

how DCFS data is mapped. Further, the Department revises the extraction process to address

identied gaps in reporting as well possible corrections to errors identied during the extrac-

tion process to improve overall data quality.

Louisiana employs only one type of screened-in response, Child Protection Assessment and

Services (CPS). The CPS program uses the same safety and risk assessment instruments and

documentation protocols for all screened-in reports.

In August of 2018, the Department implemented a new case management system to capture

data related to intake reports and investigations. As with all system implementation, a num-

ber of issues were identied. For example, the Department continues to nd issues related to

the report date and time as well as the date and time initiation of the investigation. This was

noted because of military time discrepancies discovered during the error clean-up process.

Most of these discrepancies were able to be handled for the FFY 2022 submission; however

this remains an area requiring review each submission.

The Department is currently in the planning phase of implementing a new CCWIS system to

capture all NCANDS requirements in an effective and efcient manner.

Reports

In Louisiana, referrals of child abuse and neglect are received through a centralized intake

center that operates on a 24-hour basis. The centralized intake worker and supervisor review

the information using a structured, safety model tool to determine whether the case meets the

legal criteria for intervention. Referrals are screened in if they meet three primary criteria for

case acceptance:

■ A child victim younger than 18 years

■ An allegation of child abuse or neglect as dened by the Louisiana Children’s Code

■ The alleged perpetrator meets the legal denition of a caretaker of the alleged victim

The primary reason for screened-out referrals is that either the allegation or the alleged

perpetrator does not meet the legal criteria. Newborns affected by the mother’s use of a

controlled dangerous substance taken in a lawfully prescribed manner are also screened out,

and reported in the Agency File. Some intake reports are neither screened-out nor accepted.

These additional information reports are often related to active investigations, in-home

services cases, or out-of-home services cases. Generally, if a second report is received and is

still under investigation, the second report is classied as an additional information report.

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 190

The Department uses a 4-pronged Response Priority system; the four separate priorities are

Priority 1 (contact within 24 hours), Priority 2 (contact within 48 hours), Priority 3 (contact

within calendar 3 days), and Priority 4 (contact within 5 calendar days). Louisiana no longer

employs the Alternative Response model.

The NCANDS disposition of substantiated investigation case is coded in the state as having

a disposition of valid. When determining a nal nding of valid child abuse or neglect, the

worker and supervisor review the information gathered during the investigation and if any of

the following answers are “yes,” then the allegation is valid:

■ An act or a physical or mental injury which seriously endangered a child’s physical, mental

or emotional health and safety; or

■ A refusal or unreasonable failure to provide necessary food, clothing, shelter, care, treat-

ment or counseling which substantially threatened or impaired a child’s physical, mental,

or emotional health and safety; or a newborn identied as exposed to chronic or severe use

of alcohol; or, the unlawful use of any controlled dangerous substance or in a manner not

lawfully prescribed; and,

■ The direct or indirect cause of the alleged or other injury, harm or extreme threat of

harm is a parent; a caretaker as dened in the Louisiana Children’s Code; a person who

maintains an interpersonal dating or engagement relationship with the parent/caretaker/

legal custodian; or a person living in the same residence with the parent/caretaker/legal

custodian as a spouse, whether married or not.

The NCANDS disposition of unsubstantiated investigation case is coded in the state as

having a disposition of invalid. This disposition is dened as a case with no injury or harm,

no extreme risk of harm, insufcient evidence to meet validity standard, or a non-caretaker

perpetrator. If there is insufcient evidence to meet the agencies standard of abuse or neglect

by a parent, caretaker, adult household occupant, or person who is dating or engaged to a

parent or caregiver, the allegation shall be found invalid. If there is evidence that any person

other than the parent, caretaker, or adult household occupant has injured a child with no

culpability by a parent, caregiver, adult household occupant, or a person dating/ engaged to

one of the aforementioned, the case will be determined invalid.

It is expected that the worker and supervisor will determine a nding of invalid or valid

whenever possible. For cases in which the investigation ndings do not meet the standard for

invalid or valid, additional contacts or investigative activities should be conducted to deter-

mine a nding. When a nding cannot be determined following such efforts, an inconclusive

nding is considered. It is appropriate when there is some evidence to support a nding that

abuse or neglect occurred but there is not enough credible evidence to meet the standard

for a valid nding. The inconclusive nding is only appropriate for cases in which there

are particular facts or dynamics that give the worker or supervisor a reason to suspect child

abuse or neglect occurred.

In addition to the ndings noted above, Louisiana also employs the use of an Unable to

Locate nding and a Client Non-Cooperation nding. The Unable to Locate nding is used

when the Department has made extensive efforts to locate the alleged victim and their family.

For example, attempted in-person contact at the address supplied by the reporter and other

Louisiana (continued)

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 191

addresses found via a global record search (SNAP, FITAP, Medicaid, etc.) and Consolidated

Lead Evaluation and Reporting search (CLEAR); attempted contact via phone; or a neighbor

or relative is unable to provide information on the client’s whereabouts. If the Department is

unable to locate the family after these efforts, this nding may be used.

A nding of Client Non-Cooperation shall be used only in instances in which the

Department is completely thwarted in attempts to complete the investigation by the parents’

refusal to participate in the investigation. Several conditions need to be met to use this nd-

ing: (1) the worker has made reasonable effort to interview the client; (2) Law enforcement

has not been able to assist or refused to assist with efforts to interview the client; and, (3) the

district attorney has chosen not to pursue further action; or, (4) the court has refused to order

the client to cooperate.

Children

During 2022 there were no changes to Child Protective Services policies related to conduct-

ing investigations due to the continued pandemic. However, there might have been some

instances where response time was affected due to COVID-19 exposure of families and

face-to-face contact needing to be delayed.

The Department implemented a new case management system in 2018. During that time,

the ability to identify victims of juvenile sex trafcking was made possible through the

implementation of a new category of child abuse and neglect. Louisiana reports information

on victims with parent/caretaker perpetrators; those victims are substantiated for the respec-

tive Human Trafcking allegation when the parent or caretaker is found to be culpable in the

alleged sexual trafcking incident.

Increased focus has gone to drug and alcohol affected newborns. Identication of drug and

alcohol use by the parents has been identied as a risk factor. However, reporting in this area

has been difcult due to some issues leading back to one distinct problem: Identication of

the reporter as medical personnel. Very often, the hospital social worker calls as opposed to

a doctor or nurse. Centralized Intake Staff have been given additional training in this area

to correctly identify the reporter type as medical personnel, rather than social services. A

number of Plan of Safe Care and Referral cases have been dropped as a result of this issue.

Further, staff will be given additional guidance regarding when to identify a plan of safe care

as being in place.

The agency has provided more guidance on public awareness on Human Trafcking due to

Act 622 that was passed during the 2022 Regular Legislative Session which could result in

more Human Trafcking reports. The law will go into effect January 1, 2023, and requires

that mandatory reporters shall report all alleged child sex trafcking to DCFS regardless of

whether there is alleged parental or caretaker culpability.

Fatalities

Louisiana saw a 26 percent increase in the number of fatalities from FFY 2021 to FFY 2022.

Louisiana reported 29 fatalities during FFY 2022. Policies around child fatality reviews were

not changed in 2022 and the Child Death Review Panel meetings were able to continue to

conduct operations during the pandemic.

Louisiana (continued)

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 192

The State Child Death Review panel consists of the state health ofcer or his designee,

the secretary of the Louisiana Department of Health or his designee, the secretary of the

Department of Children and Family Services or his designee, the superintendent of the ofce

of state police or his designee, the state registrar of vital records in the ofce of public health

or his designee, the attorney general or his designee, a member of the Senate appointed by

the president of the Senate, a member of the House of Representatives appointed by the

speaker of the House of Representatives, the commissioner of insurance or his designee,

the executive director of the Highway Safety Commission of the Department of Public

Safety and Corrections or his designee, the state re marshal or his designee, the Assistant

Secretary of the Ofce of Behavioral Health of the Louisiana Department of Health or his

designee, a representative of the Louisiana Partnership for Children and Families, a district

attorney appointed by the Louisiana District Attorneys Association, a sheriff appointed by

the Louisiana Sheriff’s Association, a police chief appointed by the Louisiana Association

of Chiefs of Police, a forensic pathologist certied by the American Board of Pathology and

licensed to practice medicine in the state appointed by the chairman of the Louisiana State

Child Death Review Panel subject to Senate conrmation, a pathologist experienced in pedi-

atrics appointed by the Louisiana Pathology Society, a coroner appointed by the president of

the Louisiana Coroner’s Association, the state superintendent of education or his designee,

the director of the bureau of emergency medical services of the Louisiana Department of

Health or his designee, and six persons appointed by the governor, subject to Senate conr-

mation, for a term of three years as follows:

■ A health professional with expertise in Sudden Infant Death Syndrome appointed from a

list of three names submitted by the Louisiana State Medical Society.

■ A pediatrician with experience in diagnosing and treating child abuse and neglect

appointed from a list of three names submitted by the state chapter of the American

Academy of Pediatrics.

■ Four citizens from the state at large who represent different geographic areas of the state.

Perpetrators

The current method of extracting NCANDS data captures perpetrator involvement in family

investigation cases, but does not capture perpetrator relationship to child victims. Therefore,

perpetrator relationship is reported as unknown for the majority of cases.

Services

The Child Welfare agency provides post-investigation services such as foster care, adoption,

in-home family services, and protective daycare. Many services are provided through con-

tracted providers and are not reportable in the Child File. To the extent possible, the number

of families and children receiving services through Title IV–B funded activities are reported

in the Agency File.

Louisiana (continued)

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 193

Maine

Contact Leigh-Anne Bordas Phone 207– 624 –7911

Title Information Services Manager Email

leigh-anne.bordas@maine.gov

Address Ofce of Child and Family Services

Maine Department of Health and Human Services

2 Anthony Avenue, 11 State House Station

Augusta, ME 04333–0011

General

Maine continues to utilize the Structured Decision Making (SDM) Intake Screening and

Response Priority Tool. It ensures that all reports received are investigated for meeting the

statutory threshold for an in-person Ofce of Child and Family Services (OCFS) response. It

identies how quickly to respond, and the path of response.

Reports

All reports, including reports that are not appropriate, and are referred to as screened out,

are documented in the Comprehensive Child Welfare Information System (CCWIS). The

screening decision is performed at the Intake Unit using the SDM Tool. Reports that do not

meet the statutory denition of child abuse and/or neglect and which the criteria for appropri-

ateness of child abuse /neglect report for response is not met, are preliminarily screened out.

The Maine statutory denition of child abuse and/or neglect is a threat to a child’s health or

welfare by physical, mental or emotional injury or impairment, sexual abuse or exploitation,

deprivation of essential needs or lack of protection from these or failure to ensure compliance

with school attendance requirements under Title 20–A, section 3272, subsection 2, paragraph

B or section 5051–A, subsection 1, paragraph C, by a person responsible for the child.

Maine’s report investigation start date is dened as the date and time (in hours and minutes)

of the rst face-to-face contact with an alleged victim. The SDM tool provides the appro-

priate response time required by child protective services, either 24 or 72 hours from the

approval of a report as appropriate for child protective services.

Children

The state documents all household members and other individuals involved in a report. Some

children in the household do not have specic allegations associated with them, and so are

not designated as alleged victims. These children are now included in the NCANDS Child

File for Maine.

For Maine, the NCANDS Child File category of victims includes children with the state

dispositions of both indicated and substantiated. The term indicated is used when the

maltreatment found is low to moderate severity. The term substantiated is used when the

maltreatment found is high severity.

Fatalities

In FFY 2019 Maine began the collection and ability to track child deaths at time of report,

during investigation or while in care. This information is now available in the NCANDS

Child File for deaths that occurred after June 2019. Various state ofces, along with the

multi-disciplinary child death and serious injury review board continue to share and compile

child fatality data.

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 194

Perpetrators

Relationships of perpetrators to victims are designated in the CCWIS system. Perpetrators

receive notice of their rights to appeal any maltreatment nding. Low- to moderate-severity

ndings (indicated) that are appealed result in only a desk review. High-severity ndings

(substantiated) that are appealed can result in an administrative hearing with due process.

Services

Only services through a Child Welfare approved service authorization are included in the

NCANDS Child File. Maine continues to work with our contracted agencies for the future

reporting of child/family prevention services in an NCANDS Child File.

Maine (continued)

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 195

Maryland

Contact Hilary Laskey Phone 410–767–7788

Title Deputy Executive Director of Operations Email

hilary.laskey@maryland.gov

Address Division Department of Human Services

Social Services Administration

311 West Saratoga Street

Baltimore, MD 21201

General

Maryland’s Department of Human Services Social Services Administration fully transitioned

from SACWIS to CCWIS in FFY 2020. This has allowed for changes in data collection

and mapping which have improved the state’s NCANDS submission. In preparing for other

federal reporting changes, modications have been made in required data elds that have

and will continue to improve future NCANDS submissions. Additionally, Maryland has

been working closely with local jurisdictions to ensure that initial face-to-face contacts are

documented timely as this was also part of Maryland’s program improvement plan which has

also improved the current NCANDS submission process.

In an effort to ensure better NCANDS outcomes, Maryland has an extensive CFSR local

review process, in which Maryland partners with the University of Maryland School of

Social Work, to conduct case reviews and local site reviews including interviews with fami-

lies and local partners. The state coordinates this effort in partnership with the Children’s

Bureau and as necessary develops program improvement plans with local jurisdictions that

helps align all the jurisdictions with critical federal and state expectations for child safety,

permanence, and well-being.

Maryland’s current CPS response follows the same rules for Alternative or Investigative

Response:

■ Alleged perpetrators and alleged victims are noted in the record;

■ Alleged child victims must be seen within 24 hours when abuse is alleged, and within 5

days when neglect is alleged;

■ Child safety and risk of maltreatment must be assessed;

■ The CPS response must be completed within 60 days; and

■ Additional services may be offered including in-home or out-of-home services.

Alternative Response targets low risk reports of child neglect and abuse, and although the

alleged victims and alleged perpetrators are noted in the record, the case does not establish

ndings concerning maltreatment, nor are the children receiving Alternative Response

coded as victims. Instead, alternative response allows local departments of social services

to help Maryland families to access services, supports and other assistance that will address

their concerns. Families screened in for CPS who are eligible but refuse to participate in

Alternative Response are reassigned to Investigative Response.

Investigative Response targets moderate to high-risk reports of child neglect and abuse which

results in a nding concerning maltreatment. This is Maryland’s traditional CPS investiga-

tion. Maryland has improved NCANDS data mapping for its CPS functionality in CJAMS.

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 196

Reports

Maryland’s number of referrals increased in FFY 2022 from FFY 2021 which is thought to

be due to resumption of in person education. Children with increased access to education

personnel in condential settings allowed for children to disclose alleged abuse or neglect,

which led to an increase in the reports. There were also resumption of in person mental

health and physical health appointments which allowed for increase in reports from those

mandated reporters.

Due to the enactment of a legislative bill , Maryland implemented a centralized reporting

hotline for Child Protective Services in 2021. This centralized hotline has provided a single

number for Marylanders to report suspected abuse or neglect with the ability to then route

the calls to the appropriate local jurisdiction based on the location of the allegation. The

local jurisdiction’s previous child protection numbers remained in service, allowing those to

continue to be used by those who were already familiar with them, thus providing options for

reporting suspected child abuse or neglect.

Children

Maryland regulations require that all children in a household are interviewed/assessed during

an investigation or alternative response. The time frame for these interviews/assessments of

children not initially identied as victims vary depending on the type of response.

Maryland does have a check box in place in the SDM tool to count sex trafcking: when

a caseworker chooses sexual abuse, the case worker is able to choose “yes” or “no” as to

whether it was sex trafcking. Prior mapping from Maryland’s SACWIS had not been able

to separate out the sex trafcked maltreatment. Maryland will make changes with regards to

mapping so that identication of these children can be reported in future submissions.

Several years ago, Maryland made the decision to not investigate infants where prenatal

substance abuse exposure was the only concern. These children receive a risk of harm

assessment and are reported as part of the agency le. Only in situations where additional

factors that meet abuse or neglect criteria will infants with perinatal substance abuse be

reported in the child level le. This makes it appear as if Maryland does not have many

infants with perinatal substance abuse. The plan of safe care for these infants continues

to undergo development in the state’s CCWIS and it is hoped that this will be able to be

reported in subsequent years.

Fatalities

Maryland requires that child fatalities where child maltreatment is a factor are reported by

the local departments of social services. In addition, the state and local departments also

get information about these fatalities from local agency fatality review teams, the Maryland

Department of Health’s Child Fatality Review team, and the ofce of the Chief Medical

Examiner. Any suspicious death is investigated while any sleep related death is assessed or

investigated if suspicious. Maryland is continuing to work on a centralized review for fatali-

ties where maltreatment was a factor.

Maryland (continued)

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 197

Over the past year, there has been a focus on ensuring that documentation of child death

is recorded in the CCWIS which has improved the state’s ability to report these deaths in

the child level le instead of having to report them in the agency le. This has improved

NCANDS reporting for FFY 2022.

Perpetrators

Maryland currently does not have a minimum age for a perpetrator, however the age differ-

ence and difference in ability would be taken into consideration and often in the nding, the

perpetrator would be unnamed and indicated more often than naming the youth offender.

On the other hand, when a perpetrator’s age is unknown, Maryland has used a default date of

birth, which is not always updated by the end of the investigation. This has led to the appear-

ance that Maryland has a large number of perpetrators who are over the age of 75. Maryland

will be working to ensure that a better approximation of a perpetrator’s age is documented

prior to the nalization of investigations for next year’s data submission.

Services

When CPS reports are screened out, they are evaluated to determine if the concerns raised in

the report meet criteria for a risk of harm assessment. These criteria include:

■ substance exposed newborns,

■ domestic violence (when a child has not been injured),

■ substantial risk of sexual abuse by a registered sex offender,

■ caregiver impairment,

■ previous death or serious injury of a child due to child abuse or neglect,

■ previous report to CPS and there is currently a child age 5 or under in the home,

■ suspicion of sex trafcking, and

■ adult survivor of maltreatment (where maltreator has children in care and supervision).

These assessments are able to be changed to a CPS case if the assessment indicates that the

information meets CPS criteria. Risk of Harm cases can also be referred to on-going services

to provide support to prevent potential maltreatment in the future.

As our population of children in foster care has been decreasing in the past several years,

Maryland continues to utilized family team decision meetings as well as increase the use

of evidence-based practices (EBP), such as Functional Family Therapy (FFT), Parent Child

Interactive Therapy (PCIT), Multisystemic Therapy (MST), and Healthy Families America

(HFA), which were identied in Maryland’s Family First Prevention Services Act (FFPSA)

Prevention Plan to address a holistic approach to family needs. These EBPs were rolled out

throughout the state in stages, utilizing those that were already in place following the Title

IV-E Waiver and then implementing services in other jurisdictions across the state.

Maryland (continued)

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 198

Massachusetts

Contact Nicholas Campolettano Phone 508–929–2013

Title Management Analyst

Ofce of Management, Planning, and Analysis

[email protected]

Address Massachusetts Department of Children and Families

600 Washington Street

Boston, MA 02211

Reports

The Department’s Protective Intake Policy requires non-emergency reports of abuse and

neglect to be reviewed and screened in or out in one business day. Emergency reports require

an immediate screening decision and an investigatory response within 2 to 4 hours.

Massachusetts uses a single child protection response, with all screened in reports of

suspected child abuse and neglect (51A reports) assigned to investigation-trained response

workers. This places the decision making regarding the appropriate level of departmental

intervention after the response—the point at which the Department has interviewed the

child and caregiver involved, contacted collaterals, and substantially investigated the report

of abuse or neglect. Emergency responses must be completed in 5 working days; non-

emergency responses must be completed in 15 workings days. To complete an investigation,

the policy mandates the use of the Department’s Risk Assessment Tool to assess potential

future safety risks to the child. In October 2019, the Department updated its Risk Assessment

Tool to incorporate the latest validated research to assess child safety risk more effectively

and reliably.

The number of screening and initial assessment/investigation workers listed is the estimated

full-time equivalents (FTE) based on the number of screenings and initial assessments/inves-

tigations completed during the federal scal year (FFY), divided by the monthly workload

standard for the activity, divided by 12. The workload standards are 55 screenings per month

and 10 investigations per month. The number includes both state staff and staff working

for the Judge Baker Children’s Center, Massachusetts’ Child-At-Risk Hotline contractor.

The hotline handles child protective service functions whenever state ofces are closed.

The number of workers completing assessments was not reported because assessments are

case-management activities rather than screening, intake, and investigation activities. In FFY

2022, social workers also performed screening and investigation functions in addition to

ongoing casework.

Children

In Massachusetts, intake screening and response decisions require the lowest legal threshold,

or level of proof, of “reasonable cause”, as required by Massachusetts state law. This allows

for the capture of a broader view of children potentially in need of protective services.

Response outcomes are mapped to NCANDS outcomes as follows:

■ Supported is mapped to Substantiated

■ Substantiated Concern is mapped to Other

■ Unsupported is mapped to Unsubstantiated at the report level and to Unsubstantiated at

the allegation level if the report decision is either Supported or Unsupported. If the report

decision is Substantiated Concern, an allegation decision of Unsupported is mapped to

Other.

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 199

The NCANDS category of neglect includes medical neglect; Massachusetts does not have a

separate allegation type for medical neglect. Living arrangement data are not collected dur-

ing investigations with enough specicity to report, except for children who are in placement.

Data on child health and behavior are collected, but these data need not be entered during an

investigation. Data on caregiver health and behavior conditions are not usually collected dur-

ing an investigation. For both the alcohol and drug abuse elements, the indicator is marked

as a “yes” for any information found in the health and behavior sections of the case record

and for any infant with a reported allegation of Substance Exposed Newborn or Substance

Exposed Newborn-Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome.

Since 2014, Massachusetts has engaged in a comprehensive approach to address Human

Trafcking and Sexual Exploitation of children and youth that has included:

■ Updating multiple policies to integrate understanding, identifying and responding to child

trafcking.

• Accepting reports of allegations against non-caretaker alleged perpetrators.

• Since the implementation of the new protective intake policy in 2016, the identied

perpetrators have mostly been non-relatives—the relationships are identied in the

Department’s system as “unknown” or “other person.”

■ Training of child welfare staff and community partners.

■ Maintaining an internal intranet page (available to all child welfare staff) that provides tip

and fact sheets related to Human Trafcking and Sexual Exploitation of children.

■ Implementing a Multi-Disciplinary Team model that primarily consists of Child Advocacy

Centers, the Department, and law enforcement representatives, and includes numerous

community partners.

• Child Advocacy Centers cover the entire state and there is a Human Trafcking

Coordinator within each Center.

Changes to iFamilyNet, Massachusetts’ electronic case record system were implemented in

FFY 2020 to allow for the documentation of the presence of Plans of Safe Care and Referrals

to Appropriate Services (for families of Substance Exposed Infants) during the report or

investigation. Additionally, this information can also be captured and detailed during the

Family Assessment and Action Plan that occurs on cases open for services.

Fatalities

Massachusetts reports child fatalities attributed to maltreatment only after information is

received from the state’s Registry of Vital Records and Statistics (RVRS). RVRS records

for cases where child maltreatment is a suspected factor are not available until the medical

examiner’s ofce determines that child abuse or neglect was a contributing factor in a child’s

death or certies that it is unable to determine the manner of death. Information used to

determine if the fatality was due to abuse or neglect may also include data compiled by the

Department’s’ Case Investigation Unit, reports of alleged child abuse and neglect led by the

state and regional child fatality review teams convened pursuant to Massachusetts law, and

law enforcement.

As these data are not available until after the NCANDS Child File must be transmitted, the

state reports a count of child fatalities due to maltreatment in the NCANDS Agency File.

Massachusetts (continued)

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 200

Massachusetts only reports fatalities due to abuse or neglect if an allegation related to the

child’s death is supported.

Services

Data are collected only for those services provided by the Department. The Department may

be granted custody of a child who is never removed from home and placed in substitute care.

In most cases when the Department is granted custody of a child, the child has an appointed

representative. Representative data are not always recorded in iFamilyNet.

Massachusetts (continued)

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 201

Michigan

Contact Theresa Keyes Phone 517–574–2257

Title State Administrative Manager Email

keyest@michigan.gov

Address Division of Continuous Quality Improvement

Michigan Department of Health and Human Services

Children’s Services Agency

235 South Grand Ave Suite 505

Lansing, MI 48933

Contact Cynthia Eberhard Phone 517–896–6213

Title Child Welfare Data Manager Email

eberhardc@michigan.gov

Address Michigan Department of Health and Human Services

Michigan Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System

222 North Washington Square, 1st Floor

Lansing, MI 48933

General

The Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (MDHHS) does not have a dif-

ferential response or alternate response program. MDHHS is responsible for the investigation

of complaints of child abuse and neglect allegedly committed by a person responsible for the

child’s health and welfare.

Michigan has begun to implement the commitments outlined in the Families First Prevention

Services Act instituting in three pilot communities a transfer of abuse or neglect complaints

to the United Way 211 when the complaints do not rise to the level for concern of child abuse

or neglect per state law, but indicate that the family may need prevention services.

Reports

Michigan has implemented a Structured Decision-Making protocol at the statewide

Centralized Intake Division, the twenty-four-hour hotline responsible for taking all child and

adult abuse or neglect concerns.

The decision tool routes families to prevention services to keep children and youth safe in

their own communities by establishing a system rooted in family well-being, prevention, and

equity. This initiative, MiFamily, Stronger Together, will require a signicant culture shift,

moving away from a reactive child protection system and toward a prevention-oriented, fam-

ily well-being system. Michigan has observed a slight increase, 12 percent, of referrals being

screened out since implementing a prevention-oriented system of care within Centralized

Intake.

Children

Michigan has been able to report victims of sex trafcking since scal year 2018, dened

as an individual subject to the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, obtaining,

patronizing, or soliciting of a person for the purposes of a commercial sex act or who is a

victim of a severe form of trafcking in persons in which a commercial sex act is induced by

force, fraud, or coercion, or in which the person induces to perform the act is under 18 years

old. In addition, Michigan denes labor trafcking as the recruitment, harboring, transporta-

tion, provision, or obtaining of a person for labor or services, using force, fraud, or coercion

for the purpose of subjection to involuntary servitude, peonage, debt bondage, or slavery.

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 202

Michigan has reported data for infants with prenatal substance exposure since scal year

2018. The state policy indicates that Child Protective Services will investigate complaints

alleging that an infant was born exposed to substances not attributed to medical treatment

and subsequent requirements for conrming abuse/neglect must nd that a parent’s substance

use/abuse impacts child safety/well-being. Michigan continues to collaborate with the

medical community, staff and Governor’s appointed task force to review and update policy,

process, and reporting requirements to ensure families impacted are offered a Plan of Safe

Care through either a public health or child welfare contact.

Fatalities

Michigan has observed an increase in the total number of child fatalities in scal year 2022 at

61 compared to 35 in scal year 2021 and 43 in scal year 2020. Some observations include:

■ 11 youth died in federal scal year 2021 while the investigation disposition took place in

federal scal year 2022 and therefore was included in FY 2022 report.

• 7 of the 11 fatalities occurred near the end of the reporting period.

■ 3 sets of siblings totaling 7 youth are included in the total count of child fatalities.

■ Concurrent criminal investigations impact nal determination on causality of a child

fatality.

Michigan reports child fatalities within the Child File where there is a nding of preponder-

ance outlined by category dispositions or ndings noted as a Category 1, 2, or 3. In 2022, a

total of 57 children were reported within the Child File. Michigan does not conrm persons

not responsible as dened by statute or deceased persons as perpetrators. Four child fatalities

met these criteria and have been reported within the Agency File.

Michigan participates in the Safe Systems Review program, an interagency collaborative

with multiple jurisdictions aimed at systemic improvements within child welfare systems.

Perpetrators

Perpetrators are dened as persons responsible for a child’s health or welfare who have

abused or neglected a child.

Michigan does not report non-caregiver perpetrators of sex trafcking referring these adults

to law enforcement. This population does not meet criteria of “nonparent adult” or “person

responsible” as dened in Michigan’s Child Protection Law. The exception to this is when

law enforcement is the reporting source, and they are reporting child trafcking concerns. In

these instances, Centralized Intake is required to assign the referral for investigation and the

eld determines if the person is responsible and can be substantiated.

Services

Michigan continues to provide prevention and preservation services through statewide

programing by Families First of Michigan, Family Reunication Program, and Families

Together Building Solutions-Pathways of Hope as well as local programming.

Michigan has begun to implement the Family First Prevention Services Act (FFPSA)

plan outlining ten Evidenced Based Practices to implement over time. Home Visiting

and Motivational Interviewing are the rst two practices implemented. The MiSACWIS

Michigan (continued)

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 203

application has been updated allowing prevention services data to be collected and tracked.

Michigan has a longstanding relationship with private agency providers to deliver all FFPSA

services.

Michigan refers children birth through age three to programs under the Individuals with

Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). IDEA is managed within the Michigan Department of

Education and data is not available to report within the agency le.

Michigan (continued)

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 204

Minnesota

Contact Yer Chang Phone 651–431–3292

Title Supervisor of Research, Evaluation and Change

Management Units

Child Safety and Permanency Division

yer[email protected]

Address Minnesota Department of Human Services

444 Lafayette Road

Saint Paul, MN 55155

General

Minnesota has three response paths to reports of alleged child maltreatment, currently

referred to as family assessment response, family investigative response, and facility

investigative response. Reports alleging substantial child endangerment or sexual abuse, as

dened by Minnesota statute, require an investigative response. Child protection workers

must document the reason(s) for providing an investigative response which may include:

statutorily required due to allegations of substantial child endangerment or sexual abuse, or

discretionary use for reasons such as the frequency, similarity, or recentness of reports about

the same family. Family assessment response deals with the family system in a strengths-

based approach and does not substantiate or make determinations of whether maltreatment

occurred; however, a determination is made as to whether child protective services (CPS) are

needed to reduce the risk of any future maltreatment of the children. Acceptance into either

response path, family assessment or investigative, means that a report has been screened

in as meeting Minnesota’s statutory denition of alleged child maltreatment, so allegations

accepted for either response are reported through NCANDS.

Reports

Data on CPS staff represent the full-time equivalent (FTE) of staff as reported by local

agencies (counties, combined agencies, and two tribal agencies). In Minnesota, child protec-

tion staff are employees of the local agencies rather than the state. Overall, local agencies

reported a slight decrease in the number of child protection staff compared to last year, while

the number of supervisory staff remained the same. It is difcult to generalize the impact

COVID-19 had on the child protection workforce in Minnesota due to regional and county

Covid-19 experiential impact and variation.

Reports of child maltreatment are made directly to local child welfare agencies (counties

and two tribal agencies). All three responses (family and facility investigations, and fam-

ily assessment) apply to screened-in reports of alleged child maltreatment in Minnesota.

There was not a signicant difference in the proportion of reports screened to each type

of response. A separate program, Parent Support Outreach Program (PSOP), offers early

intervention supports and services to families when reports alleging child maltreatment are

screened out or a family is voluntarily referred into the program. The number of children

served under this program is reported under preventive services in the Agency File and is

noted below in the services section of this commentary.

The COVID-19 pandemic continued to have an impact on the number of alleged CA/N

reports during FFY 2022. Overall, the number of reports continued to decline slightly from

the previous year, however, there were regional and county variances; likely correlated

to patterns of virtual/distance school programming. While no changes were made to the

statutory requirements for reporting and screening for maltreatment, multiple successive

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 205

Executive Orders from the Governor during the State’s peacetime emergency required

individuals, organizations, and businesses to intermittently “stay at home,” shutdown, and/

or engage in virtual services and education. While the State’s peacetime emergency ended on

July 1, 2021, it is likely that the physical absence of children and youth from schools, doctor’s

ofces, places of worship and other places minimized exposure to mandated reporters result-

ing in a reduction in reports of alleged CA/N.

The vast majority of referrals are screened out because the stated concerns do not meet

established criteria in Minnesota’s Child Maltreatment Intake, Screening, and Response Path

Guidelines or the denitions of child abuse or neglect under Minnesota law. Other reasons

to screen out a referral include: children not in the county’s jurisdiction, allegations have

already been assessed or investigated, not enough identifying information was provided, or

the incident did not occur within the family unit or a licensed facility. There is little variation

in the proportion of screened out referrals for each of the reasons across years. In addition,

Minnesota Screening and Response Path Guidelines and statute apply screen-in requirements

to children who have been born. Screened in reports alleging substantial child endangerment

or sexual abuse must be responded to within 24 hours. Other reports must be responded to

within 5 days or 120 hours under Minnesota statutes. Reports with either a determination

of maltreatment (substantiation) or a determination of need for child protective services are

retained for 10 years. Reports with neither determination (including all family assessment

response reports) are kept for 5 years. Screened out child maltreatment reports are also kept

for 5 years. Timelines for record retention and destruction are set in Minnesota statutes.

The NCANDS category of “other” report sources include the state categories of

clergy, Department of Human Services (DHS) birth match, other mandated, and other

non-mandated.

Children

During FFY 2022 the number of victims decreased by 4.4 percent. The number of victims

is based on determined/substantiated child victims in investigation cases. In FFY 2022,

the state continued to be affected by the COVID-19 related public health guidelines and

Governor Executive Orders requiring activities to slow the spread of coronavirus, modica-

tions were made to the timelines and face-to-face requirements for certain child protection

responses. For reports of substantial child endangerment or sexual abuse, law enforcement

or hospital staff were permitted to serve as the initial face-to-face contact with alleged

child victims; these exibilities ended on June 30, 2021. Beginning July 1, 2021, exceptions

allowing delayed contact for reports of sexual abuse or substantial child endangerment were

codied. The new exceptions allow child welfare agencies to have face to face contact with

the child within ve calendar days (versus 24 hours) when the child resides in a location

that is conrmed to restrict access with the alleged offender, or the child welfare agency is

pursuing a court order for the caregiver to produce the child for questioning. The department

encouraged face-to-face contacts and indicated that alternative methods should be used

sparingly throughout the state’s peacetime emergency. When alternative methods were used,

video were preferred. Overall, the median time to initial contact throughout the state was

longer compared to last year.

Minnesota (continued)

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 206

To ensure the safety of all children who have or had contact with an alleged offender,

Minnesota statute requires other children who currently reside with, or who have resided

with, an alleged offender to be interviewed in the early stages of an assessment or investiga-

tion. These children are subject to the same protections and provisions as the alleged victim.

The State currently collects and reports data related to infants with prenatal substance

exposure. While there were no policy changes during FFY 2022, the State has taken efforts

to improve its response through partnerships and communications. The State has also created

a dashboard to monitor data more timely to support strategies for improvement.

Fatalities

In FFY 2022, the number of maltreatment-related fatalities as compared to 2021 increased

from 22 to 25. Given the rarity and complexity of these cases, it would be misleading to

speculate on the reasons for this increase. Each fatality is a tragedy, and it is imperative that

when such an incident occurs, the state have a process for learning what we can to improve

outcomes for all children and families moving forward.

The primary source of information on child deaths resulting from child maltreatment is local

agency child protective services staff; however, some reports originate with law enforce-

ment or coroners/medical examiners. Local agencies also submit results of any local child

mortality review to the department’s critical incident review team. The department’s critical

incident review team also regularly reviews death certicates led with the Minnesota

Department of Health (MDH) and directs local agencies to enter child deaths resulting from

child maltreatment, but not previously recorded by child protective services, into Minnesota’s

Comprehensive Child Welfare Information System, to ensure that complete data are

available.

Occasionally, a child who is a resident of Minnesota becomes the subject of an alleged CA/N

related fatality in another jurisdiction. When the department’s critical incident review team

becomes aware of such an incident, documentation, including police reports, are requested

from law enforcement in the other state. The local agency within Minnesota is asked to

record the data in Minnesota’s Comprehensive Child Welfare Information System.

Minnesota has a critical incident review team that conducts reviews of maltreatment related

child fatalities. The review process, based in human factors and safety science, is a robust,

thorough and time intensive endeavor that includes a review of the child and family’s history

of involvement with the child welfare system. This process results in the identication of

systemic barriers and inuences that impact work occurring in Minnesota’s child welfare

system; this information is used to inform the state’s broader continuous quality improve-

ment efforts. In addition to the critical incident review team, Minnesota has a State Child

Mortality Review Panel. The multidisciplinary team including representatives from state,

local, and private agencies; disciplines represented include social work, law enforcement,

medical, legal, and educators. Other than conducting reviews and meetings virtually, all

other policies and procedures for reviewing child fatalities in Minnesota remained the same

throughout the pandemic.

Minnesota (continued)

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 207

Perpetrators

The NCANDS category of “other” perpetrator relationships includes other nonrelative. In

Minnesota, maltreatment determinations can be made against children age 10 and older, as

long as there is a preponderance of evidence. Noncaregiver perpetrators of sex trafcking are

included.

Services

Primary prevention services are often provided without reference to individually identied

recipients or their precise ages, so reporting by age is not possible. Clients of an unknown

age are not included as specically children or adults. Data reported in preventive services

funded by Community-Based Child Abuse Prevention (CBCAP) and Promoting Safe and

Stable Families (Title IV-B) represents the unduplicated number of children who received

Parent Support Outreach Program supports and services. Services in this program are

provided to children and families who were reported as having an allegation of child mal-

treatment, but the reported allegation was screened out and did not receive a child protective

response. Community agency referrals and self-referrals are also eligible for the Parent

Support Outreach Program. This program is completely voluntary.

Services offered by local agencies vary greatly in availability between rural and metropolitan

areas of the state. Although all agencies use a statewide service listing, resource development

without a large customer base can be difcult. Cost effectiveness is an issue for providers

who must serve large geographic areas that are sparsely populated.

As a result of the pandemic, the department temporarily lifted age restrictions and decreased

the number of risk factors that were needed to be eligible for the Parent Support and

Outreach Program. In addition, the department increased the amount of funding provided to

local agencies, encouraging a higher amount per family when indicated, and expanded the

eligible supports and services to meet the evolving needs of families during the pandemic,

including technology to participate virtually in services and educational activities.

Minnesota (continued)

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 208

Mississippi

Contact Tameika Givens Phone 601–576–1614

Title Ofce of Federal Reporting Email

[email protected]

Address Department of Child Protection Services

P. O. Box 346

Jackson, MS 39205

General

Mississippi does not have two types of responses to screened-in referrals (reports).

Reports

There was an increase of reports for FFY 2022 compared to FFY 2021.

MDCPS is constantly hiring and training new staff and rehires to the agency. The hotline

Mississippi Centralized Intake and Assessment began in July 2022, utilizing all contracted

staff for intake positions, utilizing full-time MDCPS employees for most of the intake work-

load, and utilizing contracted part-time staff for intake positions on weekends and holidays.

During the second half of FFY 2022, signicant changes were made regarding using data to

determine stafng amounts for the hotline. The shifts were streamlined into three distinct

shifts for each day, making the data used to determine stafng amounts needed for each shift

clearer and more relevant to inform stafng needs. MDCPS does not employ part time case-

workers or investigators. Full-time equivalents were used as the number of staff responsible

for intake and screening, due to there being a mixture of full-time employees and part-time

contracted staff.

A transition is being made for more of the screening to be done at the intake level, which

is a move away from the current two-part screening system in which initial screening is

conducted at intake and a nal screening is done at the county assignment level. There are

plans to implement a structured decision-making tool in the future. For FFY 2022, there was

an increase in the amount of screening assessment conducted at the intake level, especially

pertaining to whether information on children in open cases constituted a situation of abuse

or neglect by the caregiver, or whether the information pertained to the ongoing casework

management of assessing, monitoring, and managing safety, risks, and well-being.

Children

There was an increase of victims for FFY 2022 compared to FFY 2021, but the increase was

less than 10 percent. While no policy changes were made, guidance was issued for contact

precautions. No policy around response times changed and MDCPS did not observe any

unusual variances in timely initiation or completion of investigations during the pandemic

period and FFY 2022.

MDCPS has reported the human trafcking maltreatment type since FFY 2019. For FFY

2022, there were 273 sex trafcking reports in Mississippi. MDCPS continues to collaborate

with the National Human Trafcking Assessment Team (Hotline and advocates), Local Law

Enforcement, and the Mississippi Attorneys General Ofce. Ongoing efforts will continue to

address human trafcking and additional resources to serve victims.

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 209

The Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act continues to assist mothers and infants

affected by substance use exposure. For FFY 2022, MDCPS continued the Memorandum

of Understanding (MOU’s) with the Mississippi Department of Mental Health, Mississippi

Department of Health, and Healthy Families of Mississippi. These programs combined

offers case/care management services for mothers and infants, parenting education, home

visiting, and substance use treatment (inpatient and outpatient). Additionally, the Healthy

Moms, Healthy Babies program provides support in all 82 counties such as: community

support, Medicaid, SNAP, WIC, Health education for depression, anxiety, and healthy infant

development. The state does not report referrals of infants with prenatal substance exposure

in the NCANDS Child File. For FFY 2022, there were 68 children identied as IPSE. The

CARA referrals are tracked through a software called Smartsheet. The providers, Mississippi

Department of Health, Mississippi Department of Mental Health, and Healthy Families are

sent referrals through DocuSign and comments are made through Smartsheet. Mississippi

Department of Child Protection Services tracks information such as: successful/unsuccessful

attempts of contacting the mother and/or medical provider, and if the mother accept/deny

services. There are no alcohol abuse child risk factor or drug abuse child risk factor reporting

limitations. There are no alcohol abuse caregiver risk factor or drug abuse caregiver risk

factor reporting limitations.

There are no barriers on how Mississippi collects and report data to NCANDS for infants

with prenatal substance exposure.

Fatalities

There was an increase in fatalities for FFY 2022 compared to FFY 2021.The agency devel-

oped a Special Investigations Unit that is responsible for investigating all reports of child

fatalities that meet criteria for agency investigations. Previously, the investigations were

conducted by regular workers in the eld. The development of the SIU has standardized

screening and decision-making processes in fatality investigations. In addition, the investiga-

tors that make up the unit are required to have an advanced level of licensure and experience.

Having the dedicated, specialized investigators has contributed to the increase of fatalities

reported with substantiated ndings of abuse and neglect.

Mississippi previously counted only those fatalities where the medical examiner or coroner

ruled the manner of death was a homicide. In 2007, Mississippi also began counting those

child fatalities determined to be the result of abuse or neglect that has been substantiated

by MDCPS. Other sources that compile and report fatalities due to abuse and neglect are

Serious Incident Reports (SIRs) and Child Death Review Panel (CDRP) facilitated by the

Mississippi Department of Health. Child Death Review meetings are attended by MDCPS

staff and executive leadership responsible.

All fatalities reported to the agency are investigated regardless of the manner of death.

However, all reports accepted for an investigation must have an allegation.

Mississippi (continued)

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 210

Perpetrators

MDCPS does report non-caregiver perpetrators of sex trafcking to NCANDS. “Other”

perpetrator relationship would be selected when the alleged perpetrator’s relationship to the

victim is known, but it does not t into the other categories listed.

Human Trafcking laws in Mississippi stipulate that child abuse has occurred when a child

is trafcked by any person, whether or not that person is the child’s caregiver. Therefore, the

nonrelative perpetrators of Human Trafcking would be included in reporting.

Services

There were no changes to preventive services funding. Some prevention services are con-

tracted to two providers. These services continue to be outsourced to two Providers. In previ-

ous years, children who received preventive services covered under the Promoting Safe and

Stable Families grant (PSSF) during the year were utilized by the Families First Resources

Centers with some of these funds. The PSSF grant funds a portion of the in-CIRCLE Family

Support Services Program, formally known as CFFSP, or Family Preservation/Family

Reunication/Family Support Services. Beginning on October 1, 2017, the CFSSP transi-

tioned to the in-CIRCLE Family Support Services Program. Two vendors provide services

for this program, however, only one provides services funded through PSSF funds, Youth

Villages. Canopy Children’s Solutions utilized state general funds to provide services.

■ in-CIRCLE is an intensive, home and community-based family preservation, reuni-

cation, and support services program for families with children who are at risk of

out-of-home placement. It is designed and implemented to help break the cycle of family

dysfunction by strengthening families, keeping children safe, and reducing foster care and

other forms of out-of-home placements. Services are also offered to families with pregnant

mothers who were at high risk of the child being removed due to substance use issues once

the child is born.

• The primary goal of the program is to remove the risk of harm to the child rather than

removing the child by (1) reducing unnecessary out-of-home placements, (2) preventing

and/or reducing child abuse and neglect, (3) improving family and informal concrete

supports, (6) addressing mental health and substance use issues, (7) reducing child

behavior problems, and (8) safely reunifying families.

For FFY 2022, the Dorcas In-Home Family Support Program is also another program that

provided family-driven, youth-guided interventions to improve the stability of enrolled fami-

lies and their ability to provide adequate care for the children for whom they are responsible.

These interventions increased families’ access to and utilization of community resources and

assistance. 139 children/ families were served through The Dorcas In-Home Family Support

Program. The Dorcas Program is funded privately through Baptist Children’s Village as

a support to our Preventive programs. It is a no cost to our families as it is provided pro

bono. in-CIRCLE Services through Youth Villages and it is funded through PSSF. Canopy

is funded through General Funds. In Home Services served 445 children/families during

FFY 2022 under the PSSF grant. In addition, 1285 children/families were served through the

General Funds, and 139 families/children were served through the No Cost funds.

Mississippi (continued)

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 211

Services to child victims outside of a service case are provided through the Family

Reunication and Preservation Program within the In-Home Services Unit of the Agency.

Through Promoting Safe and Stable Families, General State Funds, and No Cost Services.

The total number of children/families served under these preventive services were 802

families and 1869 children. Subgrantees have continued services for this contract year to

provide step-down and soft support; whereby, it promotes less probability of reentry into the

program.

The goal is to reduce the likelihood of removal or other disruption of their living arrange-

ment. The funding stream for the Prevention subgrantees are funded through Community

Based Child Abuse Prevention Grants, (CBCAP). For, the Prevention subgrantees, the

reported numbers for October 1, 2021 — September 30, 2022 were 3, 147 families served

and 4, 362 children served. COVID- 19 continues to be a barrier for many families. However,

grantees resumed face-to-face services. Grantees continued virtual services such as parent-

ing classes/education and the ACT Raising Safe Kids Curriculum. Additionally, Support and

Concrete Groups, Counseling Referrals, Safe Sleep Education, Food Box Give Always, and

various community-based workshops were offered. The Resource Center was also utilized in

addition to case management services.

When a service case is opened and maintained by MDCPS staff, it is referred to as an

In-Home service case. These cases are opened to either maintain successful reunications

after a foster care episode or prevent the need for initial removals from home into foster care.

Mississippi (continued)

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 212

Missouri

Contact Mary Faucett, Jennifer Gunnels Phone 573–368–2400

Title Senior Social Services Specialist Email

mary[email protected]

jennifer[email protected]

Address Children’s Division (Dept. of Social Services)

Jefferson State Ofce Building

205 Jefferson Street

Jefferson City, MO 65101

General

The Children’s Division, under the Department of Social Services umbrella, is designated

to direct and supervise the administration of child welfare services. The Children’s Division

works in partnership with families, communities, the courts and other governmental entities

toward ensuring the safety, permanency, and well-being of Missouri children. The division

works with all parties to safely maintain children in their homes whenever possible and

to secure safe, permanent living arrangements when out-of-home placement is necessary.

The Children’s Division administers the Child Abuse/Neglect Hotline, Intensive In-Home

Services, Family Centered Services, Adoption Services, Independent Living, Foster Care,

Residential Licensing and preventive services including early childhood and early interven-

tion strategies. The division is responsible for the assessment and investigation of all reports

to the Child Abuse/Neglect Hotline. These services are administered statewide within a

centralized organizational framework. Children’s Division Responsibilities include:

■ Oversees a 24 hour child abuse and neglect hotline

■ Investigates child maltreatment reports

■ Provides foster care services for maltreated children

■ Provides preventive services to at-risk families

■ Provides intensive family supports for at-risk families

■ Assists with children nding permanency with adoption and guardianship services

Children’s Division Geographical Structure Missouri has 114 counties and the City of St.

Louis, which are grouped together using pre-established judicial circuit boundaries. Each

circuit has oversight by a Circuit Manager. The state is divided into six regions, with each

governed by a Regional Director. The St. Louis Region includes the county and the city of

St. Louis. Missouri’s six regions are: St. Louis, Kansas City, Southeast Region, Southwest

Region, Northeast and Northwest Region.

Missouri operates under a differential response program, where each referral of child abuse

and neglect is screened by the centralized hotline system and assigned to either investigation

or family assessment. Both types are reported to NCANDS.

Investigations are conducted when the acts of the alleged perpetrator, if conrmed, are crimi-

nal violations; or where the action or inaction of the alleged perpetrator may not be criminal,

but if continued, would lead to the removal of the child or the alleged perpetrator from the

home. Investigations include but are not limited to child fatalities, serious physical, medical,

or emotional abuse, and serious neglect where criminal investigations are warranted, and

sexual abuse. Law enforcement is notied of reports classied as investigations to allow for

co-investigation.

Family assessment responses (alternative responses) are screened-in reports of suspected

maltreatment. Family assessment reports include mild, moderate, or rst-time noncriminal

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 213

reports of physical abuse or neglect, mild or moderate reports of emotional maltreatment, and

educational neglect reports. These include reports where a law enforcement co-investigation

does not appear necessary to ensure the safety of the child. When a report is classied as a

family assessment, it is assigned to staff who conducts a thorough family assessment. The

main purpose of a family assessment is to determine the child’s safety and the family’s needs

for services. Taking a non-punitive assessment approach has created an environment in

which the family and the children’s service worker are able to develop a rapport and build on

existing family strengths to create a mutually agreed-upon plan. Law enforcement is gener-

ally not involved in family assessments unless a specic need exists.

Reports

The response time indicated is based on the time from the login of the call to the time of the

rst actual face-to-face contact with the victim for all report and response types, recorded

in hours. State policy enables, in addition to CPS staff, multidisciplinary team members

to make the initial face-to-face contact for safety assurance. The multidisciplinary teams

include law enforcement, local public school liaisons, juvenile ofcers, juvenile court of-

cials, or other service agencies. Child protective services (CPS) staff will contact the multi-

disciplinary person to help with assuring safety. Once safety is assured, the multidisciplinary

person will contact the assigned worker. The worker is then required to follow-up with the

family and sees all household children within 72 hours. Data provided for 2021 does not

include initial contact with multidisciplinary team members.

Missouri uses structured decision-making protocols to classify hotline calls and to determine

whether a call should be screened out or assigned. If a call is screened out, all concerns are

documented by the division and the caller is provided with referral contact information when

available.

During Covid, Missouri had an increase in referrals that were called in for educational

neglect that were linked to distance learning issues and did not meet the guidelines for

educational neglect. Due to the volume of calls, these reports were accepted as preventative

service referrals. As of May 2021, Missouri no longer accepted these referrals if they did not

meet the guidelines for educational neglect. This led to a decrease in the overall number of

referrals in FFY 2022 compared with FFY 2021.

Children

The state counts a child as a victim of abuse or neglect based on a preponderance of evidence

standard or court-adjudicated determination. Children who received an alternative response

are not considered to be victims of abuse or neglect as dened by state statute. Therefore, the

rate of prior victimization, for example, is not comparable to states that dene victimization

in a different manner, and may result in a lower rate of victimization than such states. For

example, the state measures its rate of prior victimization by calculating the total number of

2021 substantiated records, and dividing it by the total number of prior substantiated records,

not including unsubstantiated or alternate response records.

Missouri implemented multiple protocols to meet our investigation and assessment guide-

lines on ensuring safety and child contact. Temporary policies addressed both child and

worker safety, proper use and availability of PPE, virtual, curbside and in-person visits. In

Missouri (continued)

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 214

many situations, we did continue to investigate reports in-person. Safety of children contin-

ued to be a primary concern and when a child needed to be removed from the home, practice

was not impacted. Changes were made to our states’ calculation for our time from the start of

an investigation to nal determination for the Agency File by mirroring the same logic used

in the Child File.

Missouri tracks cases with sex trafcking victims as a result of the 2017 Preventing Sex

Trafcking and Strengthening Families Act. With the 2019 expansion of the denition

of care, custody, and control in Missouri Children’s Division policy to include those who

take control of a child by deception, force, or coercion, we have been able to identify any

perpetrator of sex trafcking as a caregiver and include them in NCANDS data. Missouri’s

concern with barriers is the current lack of an evidence-based model specic to assessing,

identifying, and responding to trafcking as it relates to working with children through the

child welfare system. CD has worked with other states to develop a comprehensive assess-

ment tool for child victims of both labor and sex trafcking. This new tool was incorporated

into CD policy and supported by Advanced Human Trafcking training.

Missouri collects data on Plans of Safe Care in the instance of a Newborn Crisis Assessment

Referral. During FFY 2022, there were 273 children who had a Plan of Safe Care developed.

During a prior review of reports, it was that noticed that staff were not checking the box as

they should. Our agency has been telling staff during their training to check the box in our

system if a plan of safe care is put in place. This is being addressed again on our agency’s

monthly CA/N call.

Newborn Crisis Assessments in Missouri are not considered reports of abuse or neglect and

there are no plans, in Missouri, to change the way Newborn Crisis Referrals are categorized.

They will continue to be considered referrals and not reports of abuse/neglect.

Fatalities

Missouri statute requires medical examiners or coroners to report all child deaths to the

Children’s Division Central Hotline Unit. Deaths due to alleged abuse or those which are

suspicious in nature are accepted for investigation, and deaths which are nonsuspicious,

accidental, natural, or congenital are screened out as referrals. Through Missouri statute,

legislation created the Missouri State Technical Assistance Team (STAT) to review and assist

law enforcement and the Children’s Division in instances of severe abuse of children.

While there is not currently an interface between the state’s electronic case management

system and the Bureau of Vital Records statistical database, STAT has collaborative pro-

cesses with the Bureau of Vital Records to routinely compare fatality information. STAT also

has the capacity to make additional reports of deaths to the hotline to ensure all deaths are

captured in Missouri’s electronic case management system (FACES). The standard of proof

for determining if child abuse and neglect was a contributing factor in the child’s death is

based on the preponderance of evidence.

Because Missouri’s hotline (CPS) agency is the central recipient for fatality reporting and

because of the state statute requiring coroners and medical examiners to report all fatalities,

Missouri could appear to have a higher number of fatalities when compared to other states

Missouri (continued)

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 215

where the CPS agency is not the central recipient of fatality data. Other states may have to

obtain fatality information from other agencies and, thus, have more difculty with fully

reporting fatalities.

In FFY 2020, Missouri adjusted coding on our mapping document to more accurately

provide child fatality information in the Child File rather than the Agency File, based on a

mapping issue found in FFY 2019 data.

Perpetrators

The state retains individual ndings for perpetrators associated with individual children. For

NCANDS, the value of the report disposition is equal to the most severe determination of

any perpetrator associated with the report.

In the 2019 Missouri legislative session, a statutory addition to the denition of those respon-

sible for the care, custody and control of a child was enacted. Current statutory denition of

care, custody and control of a child includes:

■ The parents or legal guardians of a child;

■ Other members of the child’s household;

■ Those exercising supervision over a child for any part of a twenty-four-hour day;

■ Any adult person who has access to the child based on relationship to the parents of the

child or members of the child’s household or the family;

■ Any person who takes control of the child by deception, force, or coercion; or

■ School personnel, contractors, and volunteers, if the relationship with the child was estab-

lished through the school or through school-related activities, even if the alleged abuse or

neglect occurred outside of school hours or off school grounds.

The last bullet was added to the denition to provide the Children’s Division an enhanced

ability to investigate child abuse/neglect when the alleged perpetrator has a relationship with

the victim child through school.

Missouri made a policy change to the category of “other” that changed the wording “par-

amour” to “partner” which added additional coding that fell to the “other” category. In

FFY 2020, Missouri updated coding on our mapping document to capture “partner” which

resulted in an elevated percent changed from the “other” category. The “other” category also

includes reports where the perpetrator is coded as “self” for the victim. These are instances

usually involving older victim children that are also perpetrators themselves, to younger

children on the same report, which puts them in the “other” category.

Services

Children younger than 3 years are required to be referred to the First Steps program if the child

has been determined abused or neglected by a preponderance of evidence in a child abuse and

neglect investigation. Referrals are made electronically on the First Steps website or by submit-

ting a paper referral via mail, fax, or email. First Steps reviews the paper or electronic referral

and noties the primary contact to initiate the intake and evaluation process.

Missouri (continued)

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 216

Montana

Contact Efe Benoit Phone 406–841–2457

Title Fiscal Bureau Chief Email

ef[email protected]

Address State of Montana; Child & Family Services

P.O. Box 8005

Helena, MT 59604–8005

The state did not submit commentary for the Child Maltreatment 2022 report.

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 217

Nebraska

Contact Jake Malone Phone 40 2– 471– 9112

Title IT Business Systems Analyst Supervisor Email

[email protected]v

Address Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services

Nebraska State Ofce Building, 3rd Floor

301 Centennial Mall South

Lincoln, NE 68509

General

Nebraska continued to utilize the Structured Decision Making (SDM®) model, a set of

research-based decision-support assessments, to assess reports of child safety and risk. The

utilization of SDM® provides consistency in the decision-making of protective services staff

from the point of accepting reports of abuse and neglect through the assessment of child safety

and risk levels.

Nebraska has a two-tiered system of responding to accepted reports of abuse and neglect.

Reports are assigned to a Traditional assessment or an Alternative Response. Alternative

Response (AR) is an approach to keep children safe in a family-friendly way by doing things

such as making appointments to see the family, asking the parents or caregivers for permission

to talk to their children and other collaterals, not entering abuse or neglect ndings, and offer-

ing concrete supports, among other things. AR started as a pilot in ve counties in 2014 and has

since expanded statewide as of October 1, 2018. Data for traditional and AR cases are reported

to NCANDS.

Successful child welfare practice is predicated on engaging the families with whom we come

into contact. To enhance our engagement skills, the Division of Children and Family Services

introduced Safety Organized Practice (SOP) to our staff beginning in April 2019. SOP is an

approach to child welfare casework designed to help all key stakeholders—the family and

professionals—involved with a child keep a clear focus on assessing and enhancing safety at all

points in the case process. By employing solution-focused interviewing, proven strategies for

meaningful child and youth participation, and a common language for concepts like “safety,”

“danger,” and risk,” SOP compliments SDM® to create a rigorous child welfare practice model

that is neither too naïve nor negative in its view of families. The tools utilized in SOP are

proven to enhance the development of good working relationships and create detailed practi-

cal, achievable safety plans. In the last four years, CFS has completed the roll-out of all 12

modules of SOP training statewide and is developing ongoing refresher training for staff across

Nebraska.

Reports

All reports of child abuse and neglect are received at the toll-free, 24/7, centralized Nebraska

Child and Adult Abuse and Neglect Intake Hotline (Hotline). The Hotline workers and

supervisors utilize SDM® to determine whether a report meets criteria for intervention and

the subsequent response time for accepted reports. Accepted reports are assigned to a worker

to conduct an initial assessment, which includes an SDM® Safety Assessment and SDM®

Safety Plan (if applicable) and an SDM® Risk or Prevention Assessment. Each SDM®

Assessment provides decision-making support to the worker to determine whether a case

should remain open for ongoing services.

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 218

Nebraska experienced a decrease in screened-in reports to the Hotline in FFY 2022. Despite

this decrease, Nebraska experienced an approximately 25 percent increase in screened-out

reports during FFY 2022 compared to FFY 2021 after several years of decreases during the

pandemic. The number of screened-out reports dropped signicantly during the pandemic

and has not reached the pre-pandemic levels. To ensure the safety of Nebraska’s most vulner-

able population, in June 2019, a policy was enacted whereby all reports made by medical

professionals that involve an identied child or child victim age ve and under are accepted

for assessment. That same month, Central Ofce program policy staff began performing

second-level reviews of all reports screened out at the Hotline. As of November 2021, these

reviews are conducted by Hotline supervisors. These reviews ensure the correct screening

decisions concerning reports not accepted for assessment are made.

Since the onset of the pandemic and throughout the ensuing three years, child abuse and

neglect referrals have been affected within Nebraska. Overall, the Hotline experienced

decreased call volume. Specically, there were fewer calls from educational professionals due

to school closings. However, there has been increased reporting from local law enforcement

agencies. Notably, referrals to the Hotline during this time have involved families experienc-

ing high-stress levels and involving more serious physical abuse of young children. Nebraska

has seen increased severity of verbal and physical family violence involving both weapons

and serious threats of harm. There has also been an increase in the number and complexity

of sex trafcking reports and exposure to sexualized content due to children having more

access to the internet.

The Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) did not change any

Hotline policies or procedures related to screening due to the pandemic. Nebraska also did

not experience staff reduction due to the pandemic. Specically, the Hotline did not have any

reductions due to the pandemic. However, with natural attrition, positions were utilized to

help other areas of child welfare to ensure coverage to meet child and family contact dead-

lines and complete safety assessments promptly and accurately.

Children

In FFY 2022, Nebraska saw a decrease in unique child victims. The continued expansion of

the use of Alternative Response, partly accounts for this decrease. Also, the policy enacted

whereby all reports made by medical professionals that involve an identied child or child

victim age ve and under are accepted for assessment affected this as many of those reports

are also screened as Alternative Response. Further, all Agency Substantiated ndings are

reviewed and entered by supervisors who have administrative oversight of this process. The

supervisor considering a nding of Agency Substantiated and the entry of the alleged perpe-

trator’s name on the Central Registry must nd sufcient evidence to support that the subject

of the report, the alleged perpetrator, committed child abuse or neglect as outlined in state

statute and determine that the evidence meets statutory requirements.

Nebraska did not change any policies related to investigating allegations of child abuse and

neglect or conducting assessments with families during the COVID-19 pandemic, except that

the time frame identied for CFS Specialists to complete assessments was extended from 30

to 45 days, and an Administrative Exception could be granted for an additional 15 days.

Nebraska (continued)

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 219

CFS experienced an increase in the average response time. During FFY 2022, Nebraska ended

privatization in the Eastern Service area of the state, which is the largest population area. This

change affected stafng and the ability to respond timely to reports and complete assessments.

Nebraska also changed policy during FFY 2022 to remove the lowest response priority time-

frames. Previously, Nebraska had three priority response timeframes, 24 hours, ve days, and

ten days. Now Nebraska prioritizes reports as needing a 24-hour or ve-day response.

For FFY 2022, Nebraska reported the sex trafcking maltreatment type for the entire year. As

of August 2019, Nebraska accepts all reports of trafcking without regard to the subject (the

alleged perpetrator) of the report for assessment of child safety. Findings allow for differentiation

between labor and sex trafcking. However, the nding is not an accurate indication of who is a

trafcking victim since often the identity of the subject is not known, and CFS cannot substanti-

ate an unknown perpetrator or list them on the Central Registry. Most victims of sex trafcking

engage in “survival sex,” and thus far, there is no mechanism for tracking these cases.

Beginning on April 1. 2021, CFS entered into a contract with HTI Labs to include the

Providing Avenues for Victim Empowerment (PAVE) tool in the intake and assessment

processes. PAVE is a screening, assessment, and referral process that connects trafcking

victims to services. PAVE provides a “no wrong door” entry to Children and Family Services

for victims of labor and sex trafcking. Any provider participating in PAVE completes the

PAVE screening and forwards it to the Abuse and Neglect Hotline. The Hotline receives the

report and refers it to eld staff for investigation and assessment. The level of trafcking risk

is assessed, and appropriate next steps and services that law enforcement and CFS Specialists

can implement for victims are recommended. This will result in increased reporting, ensur-

ing that those at risk of being trafcked, have been trafcked, or are survivors of trafcking

are connected with the appropriate services.

All reports from medical professionals involving children 0-5 years of age are accepted at the

Hotline. Through the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act (CARA), Nebraska has set

up a notication process for birthing hospitals. If the hospital does not feel there are concerns

of abuse or neglect, but an infant was born affected by substance use, a notication is made

to DHHS. While we continue to work with our hospitals on implementing CARA and the

difference between reporting and sending a notice, some infants are missed due to noti-

cations not being sent to DHHS. In November 2020, an updated letter explaining the two pro-

cesses was sent out to all Nebraska hospitals. The Nebraska Perinatal Quality Improvement

Collaborative held a video conference in January 2021 for all hospitals to receive additional

training and guidance on Nebraska’s CARA Implementation. This video conference was

recorded for those unable to join live.

Nebraska continues to work with external partners, including hospitals, to ensure they pro-

vide CFS staff with the necessary information to complete Plans of Safe Care. Nebraska was

chosen to receive In-Depth Technical Assistance, a two-year project through the National

Center for Substance Abuse and Child Welfare and Children and Family Futures. While the

main focus is on developing Plans of Safe Care prenatally, the data and work with external

stakeholders will allow Nebraska to grow and improve practice, ensuring all infants born

affected by substance use have a Plan of Safe Care documented.

Nebraska (continued)

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 220

Nebraska continues to increase identication and reporting on infants with prenatal

substance exposure, and CFS continues to discuss improvement strategies with the admin-

istration. Currently, only data based on children’s characteristics are included, but CFS is

working on incorporating caregiver characteristics related to substance use. In the past year,

a Standard Work Instruction was updated for all staff on what to do when an infant affected

by prenatal substance use is identied. Recently, data was made available to all service areas

to monitor the completion of Plans of Safe Care.

Fatalities

Nebraska reports child fatalities in both the Child File and the Agency File. Nebraska

reported three child fatalities resulting from maltreatment in FFY 2022. All child fatalities

are under investigation as of the date of this writing. Nebraska continues to work with the

state’s Child and Maternal Death Review Team (CMDRT) to identify child fatalities resulting

from maltreatment but not included in the child welfare system. When a child fatality is not

included in the Child File, the state determines if the child fatality should be included in the

Agency File. The ofcial report from CMDRT with nal results is usually made available

two to three years after submitting the NCANDS Child and Agency les. Nebraska will

resubmit the Agency File for previous years when there is a difference in the count than was

initially reported due to the CMDRT nal report. No policies were changed concerning child

fatality reviews.

Perpetrators

Nebraska collects information on the perpetrators and enters the data into the child welfare

information system. Information includes perpetrator demographics and the relationship

of the perpetrator to the child. Nebraska state statute prohibits a perpetrator under 12 years

of age from being listed as a substantiated perpetrator. The maltreatment will be listed, but

there is no nding entered indicating if the maltreatment was substantiated or unfounded.

In FFY 2022, Nebraska saw a decrease in unique perpetrators compared to FFY 2021. This

decrease correlated with the decline in victims and is likely due to a combination of factors:

more reports are going to Alternative Response than previously; supervisors are reviewing

all recommended ndings; and the COVID-19 pandemic has affected the number of reports

received at the Hotline and assessments performed.

Nebraska reports noncaregiver perpetrators of sex trafcking to NCANDS. Nebraska

Revised Statutes 28-710 and 28-713 require DHHS to conduct in-person investigations of

trafcking regardless of the alleged perpetrator’s relationship to the alleged victim. This

legislation was effective in August 2019. Nebraska reports “Other” relationships for perpetra-

tors of sex trafcking, including non-relatives and other people who are not professional

caregivers.

Services

Nebraska refers children younger than three years old to the Early Development Network

(EDN) in a substantiated case or a case referred by the county attorney for prosecution.

Nebraska has automated its referral system to its Early Childhood Development Network and

automatically notify the network of these children.

Nebraska (continued)

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 221

Nebraska believes most of the services provided to families can be accomplished during the

assessment phase, between the report date and the nal disposition. When a case disposi-

tion is delayed due to awaiting a court disposition, services are provided to the family. Case

management, supervised visitation, family support services, and addiction services are only

a few of the services frequently utilized by families during the pendency of their court cases.

Some or all of the services may often be concluded before the disposition. In many cases,

these are the only services required to keep the child or victim safe. Services provided before

disposition are not included in the NCANDS Child File; only those services that extend

beyond the disposition are included.

Nebraska DHHS Division of Children and Family Services provides child welfare services to

the citizens of Nebraska. The statewide Hotline is centralized in Omaha but serves the entire

state. Initial Assessment (investigation) is conducted by State of Nebraska Child and Family

Services Specialists (CFS Specialists). Before FFY 2022, CFS Specialists conducted case

management in all but one service area. In the Eastern Service Area, the privatization of case

management ended during FFY 2022.

Nebraska (continued)

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 222

Nevada

Contact Alexia Benshoof Phone 775– 687–9013

Title Management Analyst IV Email

abenshoof@dcfs.nv.gov

Address NV Department of Health and Human Services

4126 Technology Way, 3rd Floor

Carson City, NV 89706

General

Nevada child welfare agencies use a single statewide child welfare information system known

as Unied Nevada Information Technology for Youth (UNITY). UNITY is governed by

federal Comprehensive Child Welfare Information System (CCWIS) regulations. Child welfare

agencies in Nevada follow the Safety Assessment and Family Evaluation (SAFE) model. The

SAFE model supports the transfer of learning and ongoing assessment of safety throughout the

life of the case. The model emphasizes the differences between identication of present and

impending danger, assessment of how decient caregiver protective capacities contribute to the

existence of safety threats and safety planning and management services, assessment of motiva-

tional readiness, and utilization of the Stages of Change theory as a way of understanding and

intervening with families. All child welfare agencies in Nevada have implemented this model,

which has changed the state’s way of assessing child abuse and neglect and has enhanced the

state’s ability to identify appropriate services to reduce safety issues in the children’s home of

origin. Additionally, this model has unied the state’s CPS processes and standards regarding

investigation of maltreatment.

Nevada has an alternative response program, called Differential Response (DR). Families

referred to the program are the subject of reports of child abuse and/or neglect which were

determined by the agency as likely to benet from voluntary early intervention through assess-

ment of their unique strengths, risks, and individual needs, rather than the more intrusive

approach of investigation. Each child welfare agency provides DR services differently through

their agency

Reports

In FFY 2022, there was an increase in reports of abuse or neglect completed or dispositioned in

the year as compared to the previous year. Nevada has established intake processes, governed

by the SAFE model, to determine if CPS referrals constitute reports of abuse or neglect.

Referrals that contain insufcient information about the family or maltreatment of the child and

no allegations of child abuse/ are screened-out. Referrals that do meet criteria are screened-in.

Based on various factors associated with the report, CPS supervisors decide what type of

response the report merits, assign the report to either Investigation or Differential Response,

and assign a response time according to policy.

The statewide intake policy was updated in April 2020 due to challenges of the COVID-19

pandemic. One adjustment made was that some response times to make face-to-face contact

with children were modied. Report response times are one of the following:

■ Priority 1: respond within 6 hours when the identied danger is urgent or of emergency

status, there is present danger, and safety factors are identied; this response type requires

a face-to-face contact by CPS (due to COVID, this was changed from 3 hours to 6 hours

for all jurisdictions; Rural Region child welfare was previously using 6 hours as response

time so it did not change for them).

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 223

■ Priority 2: respond within 24 hours with any maltreatment of impending danger and safety

factors identied including child fatality; this response type requires a face-to-face contact

by CPS or may involve collateral contact by telephone or case review (this response time

did not change due to COVID; it is the still the same as it was prior to the pandemic).

■ Priority 3: respond within 7 business days when maltreatment is indicated, but no safety

factors are identied; this response type requires a face-to-face contact by CPS or may

involve collateral contact by telephone or case review. In situations where the initial

contact is by telephone, the agency must make a face-to-face contact with the alleged child

victim within 24 hours following the telephone contact (this response time changed due

to COVID; previously contact had to be made within 72 hours). The DR program has a

required report response time of Priority 3: respond within 7 business days (this was not

affected by the pandemic).

During FFY 2022, policies governing response times and pandemic modications for CPS

were still in place, although program oversight staff indicated workers are returning to pre-

pandemic practices for investigations and assessments as much as possible.

Over the last year, Nevada continued various Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) initia-

tives related to Nevada’s last federal Child and Family Services Review (CFSR) and subsequent

Program Improvement Plan (PIP). One ongoing CQI initiative is related to improving the

timeliness of initial contact with all children on screened-in reports. As part of the PIP, over

the last few years, child welfare staff improved processes to reach out to families and make

child contact promptly and improved processes for timely documentation of contact in the child

welfare information system. A monitoring and oversight report was developed as a tool for eld

supervisors as well as CQI and QA units to track adherence to processes and policies in this

area, and training and technical assistance have been provided regularly to improve documen-

tation of initial child contact, which has improved the overall average response times for reports

included in our NCANDS data.

Nevada’s CPS reports received are back up to pre-pandemic levels. Additionally, the statewide

CPS Hotline for child maltreatment referrals did not go through any changes to the hours of

operation or stafng levels during FFY 2022. The Rural Region opened a new centralized

intake unit during FFY 2021 and were still only 60% staffed through FFY 2022, but plan to

become fully staffed in January 2023.

Children

In FFY 2022, there was an increase in the number of children reported as possible victims as

compared to the previous year. Further, the number of conrmed unique victims increased

compared to the previous year. Nevada child welfare policy requires that all children in a

household are assessed for safety and well-being if any child in the household has a maltreat-

ment allegation.

Regarding alcohol and drug abuse risk factors for both children and caregivers, some reporting

limitations exist in our data. For example, there are several places in the statewide child welfare

information system where data related to NCANDS alcohol or drug abuse risk factors for

children or caregivers can be captured. Depending on how and where data is entered, the value

for both the alcohol abuse and drug abuse risk factors for a child or caregiver may be reported

Nevada (continued)

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 224

as ‘1-yes’ or only one risk factor may be set to ‘1-yes.’ There is overlap where the risk factor for

both alcohol and drug abuse can be set to ‘1-yes’ when there is documented substance abuse,

but it is not clear whether it due to alcohol or drugs.

Over the last year, the child welfare information system was updated to be able to collect

whether a substance-exposed infant has a plan of safe care. The changes to the information

system were deployed in late May 2022, which allowed certain CARA-related data collection

to start at the end of May 2022. For many substance-exposed infants in our NCANDS Child

File, both child risk factors related to alcohol and drug abuse are set to ‘1-yes’ based on the way

substance-exposed infants are often documented in Nevada’s child welfare information system.

In the past year, functionality was added to the state’s child welfare information system for

collecting and documenting Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children (CSEC). However,

this documentation does not always involve a screened-in CPS report with allegations of

maltreatment, as perpetrators may often be noncaregivers or may be unknown. When CSEC

is identied for a child and no maltreatment is alleged against the child’s known caregiver,

then Nevada’s coordinated model response protocol may be initiated. Staff will input CSEC

information into the child welfare information system, but not necessarily as a report requiring

a traditional CPS Investigation; in those instances, because there is no maltreatment allegation

or investigation initiated, these youth and the CSEC data cannot be reported in the NCANDS

Child File. Regarding instances where CSEC-related maltreatment is alleged against the child’s

caregiver, then a report and investigation will be initiated.

Fatalities

Fatalities identied in the child welfare information system as maltreatment deaths are reported

in the Child File. Deaths not included in the Child File, for which substantiated maltreatment

was a contributing factor, are included in the Agency File as an unduplicated count. Reported

fatalities can include deaths that occurred in prior periods, for which the determination was

completed in the next reporting period. The total number of NCANDS reported fatalities has

decreased since the last reporting period.

Nevada uses a variety of sources when compiling reports and data about child fatalities result-

ing from maltreatment. Any instance of a child suffering a fatality or near fatality, who previ-

ously had contact with, or was in the custody of, a child welfare agency, is subject to an internal

case review. Data are extracted from the case review reports and used for local, state, and

federal reporting as well as to support prevention messaging. Additionally, Nevada has both

state and local child death review (CDR) teams which review deaths of children. The purpose

of the Nevada CDR process is public awareness and prevention, enabling many agencies and

jurisdictions to work together to gain a better understanding of child deaths. The regional and

statewide CDR teams did not undergo any policy changes to the child fatality review process

due to the pandemic.

Perpetrators

Nevada does not report caregiver perpetrators of sex trafcking to NCANDS.

Nevada (continued)

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 225

Services

In FFY 2022, Nevada has returned to pre-pandemic working practices whenever possible.

Program staff indicate there are, however, some circumstances that continue to require some

appointments to be delivered via telehealth methods.

Many of the services provided to children and families served by CPS agencies are handled

through outside providers. Information on services received by families is reported through

various programs. Each child welfare jurisdiction manages its service array differently.

Services provided in conjunction with the new safety model are documented in the UNITY

system, but these data are not always readily reportable as they may documented as text in

lengthy case notes instead of in easily query-able data elds. The state is continuing to investi-

gate how to improve reporting of services-related data.

Nevada follows its statewide policy (#0502 CAPTA-IDEA Part C), which states: “Child welfare

agencies will refer children under the age of three (3) who are involved in a substantiated case

of child abuse or neglect, or who have a positive drug screen at birth, to Early Intervention

Services within two (2) working days of identifying the child(ren) pursuant to CAPTA Section

106 (b)(2)(A)(xxi) and IDEA Part C of 2004.” The policy further denes “involved” to include

children that are identied as: having been abused or neglected; having a positive drug screen

at birth; or found in need of services.

Nevada (continued)

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 226

New Hampshire

Contact Daniel Paton Phone 603–271–4714

Title Data Analyst Email

[email protected]

Address Division for Children, Youth and Families

Department of Health and Human Services

97 Pleasant Street

Concord, NH 03301

General

New Hampshire was able to update the NCANDS extract code this year to provide more

accuracy in the following areas:

■ “Added Allegations,” additional information that came in as subsequent referrals during

an investigation and were rolled up into the original referral. This accounted for over 500

additional records and nearly 2,600 additional maltreatment allegations and dispositions.

■ New services in our service array for home-based therapeutic services.

■ A new voluntary Case Management service provided following unfounded investigations.

■ Some CARA elds are being reported for the rst time.

New Hampshire’s child protection system does not include Differential Response. The state

uses a tiered system of required response time, ranging from 24 to 72 hours, depending

on level of risk at the time of the referral, as determined by a Structured Decision Making

(SDM) tool.

Reports

There was no signicant change in the number of reports received during the year, nor the

number of screen-outs. Stafng rates for both intake and investigations also remained the same,

although the State experienced about a 20 percent turnover in stafng for CPS functions. The

State contracts with a vendor to receive and document reports after hours and on weekends and

holidays.

The screening process in New Hampshire relies on a structured decisionmaking tool to deter-

mine whether a report rises to a level of risk requiring an investigation. Screened-out reports

are retained in the system to provide context for future reports.

Response time for screened-in reports decreased for a fourth year in a row as the agency

continues to focus on improving practice and compliance with recommended timeframes. This

improvement is supported by daily conferences between workers and supervisors to determine

the workers’ priorities for the day, including meeting required response times for assessments.

Children

There was no signicant change in the number of children or victims this year. For sex

trafcking reports, New Hampshire began screening in all reports of sex trafcking, regard-

less of the relationship to the perpetrator(s), in September 2021. Prior to that date, only the

reports where the perpetrator was a member of the household were screened in. As a result of

this policy, and a concerted educational campaign to ensure that all suspected sex trafcking

cases are reported to DCYF, regardless of who the perpetrator may be, and to ensure that

police departments understand the denitions of sex trafcking that are reportable offenses,

the number of sex trafcking reports and potential victims rose by approximately 140

percent.

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 227

This is the rst year that Plans of Safe Care and Referrals to Appropriate Services for CARA

are included in the NCANDS Child File. However, because the elds that collect this infor-

mation in the system are not mandatory we did not meet the recommended goal of 95 percent

reporting. We expect these numbers to improve in the future, particularly after the state

implements a new CCWIS, currently in design.

Fatalities

New Hampshire documents fatalities that are suspected of being the result of abuse or

neglect in the state SACWIS. Therefore, all immediately known fatalities are reported in

the Child File. However, in a situation where a child is rst reported missing, but then found

deceased months or years later, the fatality may not have been documented in the SACWIS

and will be included in the Agency File.

The state’s Child Fatality Review Committee (CFRC) reviews child deaths from many differ-

ent causes, including abuse/neglect. However, the committee is not a source of reporting to

intake or for the NCANDS submission.

In addition to the CFRC, the NH Division for Children Youth and Families conducts fatality

reviews internally, employing a safety science model that focuses on systems and how those

systems impacted decision making. The assigned worker and supervisor for the case affected

by a fatality attends these reviews.

The NH Ofce of Child Advocate also conducts their own fatality reviews, using a systems

learning model. The assigned worker and supervisor do not attend those reviews, but a team

from the child protection agency does participate.

Perpetrators

With the exception of sex trafcking, New Hampshire screens in only those reports where

the alleged perpetrator is a member of the child’s household, having access to the child. The

perpetrator may or may not be a caregiver, but is always a member of the household. For sex

trafcking, New Hampshire began screening in all reports of sex trafcking, regardless of

the relationship to the perpetrator(s), in September 2021. Prior to that date, only the reports

where the perpetrator was a member of the household were screened in.

New Hampshire generally does not name minors as perpetrators of neglect or physical abuse,

except for juvenile parents who have abused or neglected their own children. Other minors

may be named as perpetrators of physical abuse, however it is more likely that the report

will be approached as parental neglect (lack of supervision) when a child is reported to be

physically abused by another child in the home. By policy, no child under the age of 13 may

be named as a perpetrator of sexual abuse. There are no other policies governing the age at

which a minor may be named as a perpetrator.

All perpetrator relationships are mapped to one of the NCANDS values, and we do not use

“other” for any perpetrator relationships.

New Hampshire (continued)

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 228

Services

In February 2021, DCYF began providing case management services, through an indepen-

dent service provider, for some families following an assessment in which concerns did not

warrant a nding of abuse or neglect, but where the family was found to be at higher risk.

This is the rst year that we have reported on this service.

“Other” services in Element 85 includes “ISO In-Home,” an Individual Service Option that

provides comprehensive services for children/youth with signicant challenges, which may

be medical, physical, behavioral, or psychological. The service therefore ts into several

different service categories, but not precisely into any one category.

New Hampshire is only able to report services that were paid for or authorized directly by the

child protection agency. Services that were paid for by Medicaid or the family’s own health

insurance are not reported for:

■ Counseling Services

■ Health-Related and Home Health Services

■ Substance Abuse Services

New Hampshire does not provide or collect data on the following services, as dened by

NCANDS:

■ Employment Services

■ Family Planning Services

■ Home Based Services

■ Information and Referral Services

■ Housing Services

■ Legal Services

New Hampshire (continued)

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 229

New Jersey

Contact Nicole Ruiz Phone 609–888–7336

Title Program Specialist

Ofce of Research, Evaluation and Reporting

[email protected]

Address New Jersey Department of Children and Families

50 East State Street

Trenton, NJ 08625

General

Each NCANDS Child File data element is reported from New Jersey’s system, called NJ

SPIRIT. The state is continuously making enhancements toward improving the quality of

NCANDS data. New jersey has declared that NJ SPIRIT will be its comprehensive child

welfare information system (CCWIS) and plans to achieve compliance.

New Jersey’s Department of Children and Families’ (DCF) Division of Child Protection and

Permanency (CP&P) investigates all reports of child abuse and neglect. New jersey does

not use a differential response protocol; all allegations of child abuse and neglect meeting

statutory criteria for investigation are screened-in for response. In New Jersey, the category

of neglect includes allegations of medical neglect. NJ SPIRIT allows the linking of multiple

CPS reports to a single investigation. The state system also allows for documenting the date

and time of the initial face-to-face contact that began the investigation.

Reports

In FFY 2022, the number of unique reports increased compared to FFY 2021, however,

this number is consistent with reports received prior to COVID-19. Phone calls to our State

Central Registry (SCR) decreased with the onset of COVID-19. We attribute the number of

reports increasing in FFY 2022 to the leveling of our call volume.

Our screening process for reports only takes place at our SCR. As a result of COVID-19,

there was a change in stafng protocols in which resulted in a decrease in the number of SCR

staff. A new 40-hour work week is being implemented to assist with call volume and these

positions are expected to be lled by the end of FFY 2023.

For a CPS report to be accepted, four criteria must be met:

■ The alleged child victim is a born child, under 18 years of age.

■ The alleged perpetrator(s) is the child’s parent, guardian, or other person in a caregiving

role, who has custody or control of the child.

■ The child victim(s) was harmed or placed at substantial risk of harm; meeting criteria

specied in the allegation based system.

■ There is a specic incident or set of circumstances that suggest the harm or substantial

risk of harm was caused by the child’s parent, guardian or other person having custody or

control of the child.

Children

New Jersey investigates allegations of commercial sexual exploitation for alleged victims

under the age of 18; in addition, New Jersey only investigates child abuse and neglect allega-

tions of sex trafcking when the alleged perpetrator is in a caregiving role. For FFY 2022,

there were additional children subject to human trafcking by a non-caregiver who received

services from DCF; however, they are not included in the CPS report count.

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 230

Children with allegations of maltreatment are designated as alleged victims in the CPS report

and are included in the NCANDS Child File. NJ SPIRIT allows for reporting more than one

race for a child. Race, Hispanic/Latino origin, and ethnicity are each collected in separate

elds. Despite the number of CPS referrals increasing from FFY 2021 to FFY 2022, the

number of child victims continues to decrease. The rate in which NJ substantiated reports

also decreased from FFY 2021 to FFY 2022.

In 2017, in response to the comprehensive addiction and recovery act of 2016 (CARA), New

Jersey amended its regulations and further modied the allegation-based system to capture

allegations of substance affected newborns. For FFY 2022, New Jersey identied more than

two thousand substance exposed newborns of which, 1,909 (94 percent) had a plan of safe

care and 1,909 (94 percent) were referred to appropriate services. We anticipate reporting the

number of plans of safe care created and the number referred to appropriate services in the

FFY 2023 NCANDS Child File.

Fatalities

In FFY 2022, the number of child fatalities increased compared to FFY 2021, however, New

Jersey has maintained a stable annual child fatality rate for the last ten years. Fluctuations in

the number of fatalities from year to year are likely due to random case-level variation and

are monitored closely. Child fatalities are reported to New Jersey DCF by many different

sources including law enforcement agencies, medical personnel, family members, schools,

ofces of medical examiners and, occasionally child death review teams. The CP&P assistant

commissioner ultimately determines if the child fatality was the result of child maltreatment.

The ofce of quality manages a critical incident review process that uses safety science

approaches, including human factors debrieng. The state NCANDS liaison consults with

the ofce of quality and CP&P to ensure that all child maltreatment fatalities are reported in

the state NCANDS les.

NJ SPIRIT is the primary source of reporting child fatalities in the NCANDS Child le.

Specically, child maltreatment deaths are reported in the NCANDS Child File in the eld

maltreatment death. The data is collected and recorded by investigators and the person man-

agement screens are updated in NJ SPIRIT. Other child maltreatment fatalities not reported

in the Child File due to data anomalies, but which are designated child maltreatment fatalities

by the Ofce of Quality under the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA), are

reported in the NCANDS Agency File under child maltreatment fatalities not reported in the

Child File. New Jersey only investigates child deaths if there is a reported allegation of abuse

or neglect.

Perpetrators

In New Jersey, perpetrators are dened as persons responsible for a child’s welfare who have

engaged in the abuse or neglect of that child. Minors shall be considered caregivers to their

own children and may be considered caregivers to other children if caring for that child at the

time of an alleged act of abuse or neglect and of sufcient age and maturity to reasonably be

expected to provide such care. New Jersey does accept perpetrator relationship types that are

categorized as “other”, including but not limited to: child in foster/adoptive home, child in

other licensed care, and other. For sex trafcking, New Jersey only investigates child abuse

and neglect allegations in which the alleged perpetrator is in a caregiving role.

New Jersey (continued)

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 231

Services

New jersey aims to preserve children in their own home for support services. For more than

10 years, New Jersey continues to observe a decline in the volume of children separated

from their family as a child welfare intervention. Data regarding services to children with

behavioral health and substance use disorder diagnoses, as well as the volume of children

separated from their family as a child welfare intervention is available on the NJ child

welfare data hub at (www.njchilddata.rutgers.edu).

New jersey contracts for all direct services except for case management services. NJ SPIRIT

reports those services specically designated as family preservation services, family support

services, and foster care services as postinvestigation services in the Child File.

New Jersey (continued)

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 232

New Mexico

Contact Doreen Chavez Phone 505–412–9868

Title SACWIS/AFCARS/NCANDS/FACTS Program

Manager

Ofce of Performance and Accountability

doreen.chavez@state.nm.us

Address Children, Youth & Families Department

1120 Paseo de Peralta

Santa Fe, NM 87501

General

There have been no recent changes in the state’s policies, programs, or procedures that would

affect New Mexico’s FFY 2022 NCANDS submission.

Currently, New Mexico does not have more than one type of response for screened-in

reports. All screened-in reports are investigated. Screened-out reports are cross-reported to

local law enforcement. A differential response pilot program was implemented in a limited

scope during FFY 2020 (to support families with allegations of educational neglect during

widespread remote schooling). Referral criteria expanded, and the program is now operating

as envisioned to support families with a wider variety of risk factors and needs. The program

is still only operational in four counties but will be rolled out to more counties in FFY 2023

and FFY 2024.

Reports

The number of screened-in referrals in FFY 2022 increased from New Mexico’s FFY 2021

NCANDS submission. This slight increase may be attributed to FFY 2022 being the year that

children were back to in-person learning and school personnel comprise a signicant propor-

tion of our reporting sources.

The agency has not made any signicant changes to its call center processes and procedures,

other than normal staff turnover and training, as well as concerted efforts to reduce call

center wait times.

The New Mexico denition for the investigation start date (“initiation”) is dened as the

caseworker making face-to-face contact with each alleged victim identied in the report,

rather than the individual child referenced in the NCANDS Child File. New Mexico also

measures initiation time frames from the point at which the report is accepted by Statewide

Central Intake, rather than the point at which the report is received or assigned to a worker in

the county where the family resides.

New Mexico has modied the state’s data collection system to capture incident information.

New Mexico updated the data collection to coincide with the 2022 reporting period. The

2022 submission should have an accurate incident date for the entire reporting year.

Children

The total number of unique children for FFY 2022 increased and the number of unique child

victims in FFY 2022 decreased from New Mexico’s FFY 2021 NCANDS submission.

New Mexico investigation procedures do include face-to-face assessment of all children

living in the household, regardless of whether they are identied as an alleged victim in the

initial report.

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 233

The state does not have the capacity to report sex trafcking as an allegation type currently.

As New Mexico transitions to a CCWIS, this change will be fully implemented, and report-

ing will likely begin once resources to map the changes become available.

New Mexico’s Department of Health receives the plans of care through the portal, although

there remain some training issues statewide with birthing hospitals on consistent use of the

portal.

Fatalities

New Mexico reported an increase by approximately 77 percent in FFY 2022 as compared to

FFY 2021. Percent differences in fatalities from year to year are highly susceptible to broad

uctuation due to the overall low numbers of applicable fatalities occurring in the population.

New Mexico’s overall child population is small compared to many other states. The total

number of fatalities from year to year is proportionately small, so even incrementally small

increases in the number of fatalities from one year to the next impacts the data but do not

necessarily indicate systemic changes in agency practice. Because these records are included

in the submission that corresponds with the investigation closure date, the length of time that

some of these cases must remain open to allow for thorough investigation can also create

year-over-year variation.

New Mexico identies applicable child fatalities for inclusion in the NCANDS Agency File

by comparing homicides in the child le with homicides identied by the state Ofce of the

Medical Investigator (OMI). Any child victims who do not already appear in the agency’s

NCANDS Child File are reviewed to determine the identity and relationship of the perpetra-

tor. Only children known to have died due to maltreatment by a parent or primary caregiver,

not already included in the child le, are then included in the NCANDS Agency File.

The agency does not investigate all fatalities. Only fatalities reported to the agency by law

enforcement, medical personnel, or other reporting source are investigated.

Perpetrators

The state only investigates and reports maltreatment allegations in which the alleged perpe-

trator is a parent or other caregiver such as a relative, other household member, stepparent,

guardian, foster parent, sibling, or any individual with responsibility for the care, supervi-

sion, and safety of a child. However, the agency does not report information on residential

staff perpetrators, as CPS does not have jurisdiction under state law to investigate allegations

of abuse and neglect in facilities. If such allegations are reported to Statewide Central Intake,

the following procedures are followed:

■ The report is screened out to CPS but cross-reported to the law enforcement agency that

has jurisdiction over the facility/incident.

■ The report is cross reported to the Licensing and Certication Authority, which as adminis-

trative oversight of residential facilities.

■ Upon request from law enforcement, CPS investigation staff may act in consultation in

conducting investigations of child abuse and neglect in schools and facilities and may assist

in the interview process.

New Mexico (continued)

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 234

Services

Postinvestigation services are reported for any child or family involved in a child welfare

agency report that has an identied service documented in the SACWIS as: 1) a service

delivered, 2) a payment for service delivered, or 3) a component of a service plan. Services

must fall within the NCANDS date parameters to be reported.

The state is not able to report on the following services data elds regarding information and

referral services:

■ Special services-juvenile delinquency

■ Employment services

■ Family planning

■ Housing services

■ Independent and transitional living services

■ Legal services

■ Pregnancy/parenting services for young parents

■ Respite care

Every substantiated investigation involving a child younger than 3 years old, per state policy,

is referred to the Family Infant Toddler (FIT) Program for a diagnostic assessment. The

referral occurs within 2 days of the substantiation. The date of this referral is documented in

the state SACWIS prior to approval of the investigation results. The worker also noties the

family of the referral and provides them with a copy of the FIT fact sheet.

New Mexico no longer offers Family Preservation services per the Family Preservation

Model. New Mexico offers In-Home Services, which is a clinical intervention aimed at

reducing safety threats and enhancing parental protective capacities. In-Home Services is

a 4-to-6-month intervention, specically geared toward families who are at risk of child

removal. New Mexico’s In-Home Services clinicians are all licensed social workers or

licensed clinical counselors.

New Mexico (continued)

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 235

New York

Contact Hui-Shien Tsao, Ph.D. Phone 518–474–6791

Title Research Scientist

Bureau of Research, Evaluation and Performance

Analytics

Strategic Planning and Policy Development

[email protected].gov

Address New York State Ofce of Children and Family Services

52 Washington St, Room 323 North

Rensselaer, NY 12144

General

Prior to January 1, 2022, the level of evidence required in NY to substantiate an allegation of

child abuse or maltreatment was “some credible evidence.” Beginning on January 1, 2022, the

level of evidence required was raised to “a fair preponderance of the evidence” standard. New

York State Ofce of Children and Family Services (OCFS) regulations (18 New York Code

Rules and Regulations-NYCRR, section 434.10) dene these terms as follows:

■ “Some credible evidence” is evidence that is worthy and capable of being believed.

■ “A fair preponderance of the evidence” is evidence that outweighs other evidence that is

offered to oppose it.

A core component of the legislative intent behind raising the evidentiary standard was to

address disparities. Overrepresentation of low-income individuals and those of color in the

child welfare system is well documented. The enacted statutory changes will work to rectify

potential employment consequences for allegations of child maltreatment that are not sup-

ported by a fair preponderance of the evidence. The new law does not change the criteria

to be utilized when determining whether to register a report of suspected child abuse or

maltreatment.

Reports

On March 31, 2021, the Marihuana Regulation and Taxation Act (MRTA) was signed into

law legalizing adult-use cannabis (commonly referred to as recreational marihuana). In

response to this change, OCFS notied local districts in April 2022 that the Statewide

Central Register of Child Abuse and Maltreatment (SCR) will “not register a report of

suspected child abuse or maltreatment when the only reported concern is that a birthing

parent and/or an infant tested positive for the presence of cannabis. Additionally, the SCR

continues to not register a report when the only reportable concern is that a parent uses

cannabis products.”

The NY SCR operates 24/7. It is staffed by trained Child Protective Specialists who conduct

a focused interview with the caller and use the information to determine if a report of

suspected abuse or maltreatment can be registered, or if other action is necessary and appro-

priate, such as a Law Enforcement Referral (LER). New York does not collect information

about calls not registered as reports.

In FFY 2022 the number of full-time SCR screening staff decreased 15 percent. NY is facing

a work force challenge and is working to recruit additional staff. While NY maintains a

statewide hotline for CPS referrals, response to accepted referrals is handled at the county

level. New York State law requires that each local department of social services (LDSS)

establish a Child Protective Services unit (CPS) within the LDSS to investigate suspected

child abuse and maltreatment, provide protection from further abuse or maltreatment and

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 236

offer rehabilitative services for the child or children and parents or caregivers involved.

Investigations must start within 24 hours of receipt of the report and caseworkers are

required to conduct a safety assessment within 7 days of an accepted referral to determine

whether the child named in the report or any other children in the household are in immedi-

ate danger of serious harm.

To allow for a more exible response to families reported to the SCR, New York State

enacted a law in 2007 authorizing a dual track child protective system [SSL §427-a]. The law

prescribes the broad parameters of Family Assessment Response (FAR) and allows LDSSs

that are authorized to establish a FAR program considerable exibility to develop approaches

that best match local resources, stafng capacity, and needs of families.

The law excludes reports containing allegations of sexual abuse, physical abuse, severe or

repeated abuse, abandonment, and failure to thrive from consideration for FAR [SSL §427-

a(3)(a)-(i)]. It also requires an initial assessment of child safety, and if a child is deemed

unsafe, the report may not be handled using FAR [SSL §427-a(4)(c)]. LDSSs can opt to

impose more restrictive eligibility criteria for assignment to FAR than those required by the

statute [SSL §427-a(3), 18 NYCRR 432.13(b)(4)(ii)].

Accepted referrals handled on the CPS track receive a CPS investigation and are determined

to be indicated or unfounded. Data from both traditional Child Protective Services path and

FAR path are reported in NCANDS.

Prior to FFY 2021, approximately 10 percent of NY reports submitted to NCANDS were

mapped to the “other” report source category. To address this concern, NY revised its report

source mapping rules beginning with the FFY 2021 submission. Under these new rules

several report sources previously attributed to “other” were reassigned to existing NCANDs

categories. For example, reporters from shelters, community agencies or service providers

were reassigned to the “Social Service Personnel” category. Additional changes included

moving “Substance Abuse Counselors” to the “Mental Health Personnel” category; “Parent

Substitute” and “Guardian” to the “Parent” category; and “Godparent”, “Non-relative”,

“Concerned Citizens”, and “Unrelated Household Members” to the “Friends and Neighbors”

category. These changes signicantly reduced the percentage of reports attribute to the

“Other” reporter source.

Children

NY has an allegation type of “Parent Drug/Alcohol Use.” During the investigation, CPS case-

workers can document the drug or alcohol use of the caregivers, giving the state the capability

to separate caregivers’ use of drugs from use of alcohol. This allegation does not directly cor-

respond to any of the predened NCANDS maltreatment type categories. Beginning with the

FFY 2021 le, NY changed its mapping rules to move this allegation from “Other” to “Neglect

or Deprivation of Necessities.”

Not all children reported in the Child File have AFCARS IDs because the State uses different

child identiers for child protective service cases and child welfare cases. If a child’s system

involvement is limited to CPS investigation, the child will not be assigned a child welfare

New York (continued)

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 237

identier (i.e., AFCARS ID). Additionally, the Justice Center for the Protection of People with

Special Needs which investigates reports of institutional abuse uses a different child identier.

Ideally a child should have a single child protective services case id that spans across all

CPS reports. However, in some instances a child is assigned a new child protective services

case id when a new report is received, resulting in some children having more than one

child protective services case id. New York State is exploring ways to detect and reduce the

circumstances that lead to multiple child protective case ids per child.

Information on “child alcohol and drug abuse” risk factors was reported for the rst time in

FFY 2020. In NYS accepted allegations include “child drug or alcohol abuse” and “parent drug

or alcohol abuse.” If a child is over the age of one and named as an alleged victim of an allega-

tion of child drug or alcohol abuse, the child is identied in the NCANDS le as having a drug

or alcohol risk. If a child is under the age of one and named as an alleged victim of parent drug

or alcohol abuse and one or more additional risk factors are checked (positive tox, withdrawal,

Fetal Alcohol Spectrum) the child is identied in NCANDS as having a drug or alcohol risk.

For every child younger than one year old named as an alleged victim of parent drug or alco-

hol abuse, where one or more additional risk factors are checked (positive tox, withdrawal,

Fetal Alcohol Spectrum), NY requires that information on plans of safe care and service

referral be completed, regardless of reporter type. This differs from NCANDS rules, which

state that information on plans of safe care and referral only be provided when the reporter

was classied as “medical personnel.” In NY, many reporters identify by professional quali-

cation (e.g., social worker) rather than setting (e.g., medical personnel). As a result, while NY

maintains information on the plan of safe care and referral for all children identied in the

NCANDS le as substance exposed, the plan of safe care and referral numbers reported in

the NCANDS le are limited to those cases in which the report source identied as medical

personnel, under reporting the number of children in each category. Information on plans of

safe care and service referral is reported for the entire FFY 2022.

In FFY 2022, NY reported an 11 percent decrease in the unique child victims. This change is

likely driven by the change in evidentiary standards described above.

Fatalities

By state statute, all child fatalities due to suspected abuse and neglect must be reported by

mandated reporters, including, but not limited to, law enforcement, medical examiners,

coroners, medical professionals, and hospital staff, to the Statewide Central Register of Child

Abuse and Maltreatment. No other sources or agencies are used to compile and report child

fatalities due to suspected child abuse or maltreatment. NY also has a state Child Fatality

Review Team that fulls oversight and reporting roles.

State practice allows for multiple reports of child fatalities for the same child and deaths that

occurred in previous years to be reported to the State Central Register (SCR). These fatalities

are then investigated, and dispositions made. This practice allows for reporting of fatalities

reported in previous NCANDS les to be reported again. After further review of reporting

instruction and clarication with NCANDS technical assistance, NY revised how it reports

fatalities within NCANDS starting in FFY 2020. NY now includes all fatalities regardless

New York (continued)

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 238

the date of death to NCANDS fatality reporting, as long as the fatality report investigation

ended during the reporting period and the fatality had not been reported in a prior NCANDS

submission.

Perpetrators

In NY, any of the following persons who are allegedly responsible for causing injury, abuse

or maltreatment to, or allowing injury, abuse or maltreatment to be inicted on, a child

named in a report to the SCR may be a subject of a report:

■ A child’s parent or guardian; or other persons legally responsible

■ A director, operator, employee or volunteer of a home operated or supervised by an autho-

rized agency, OCFS, a family day-care home, a day-care center, a group family day-care

home, or a school-age child care program; who allegedly is responsible for causing injury,

abuse, or maltreatment to a child who is reports to the Statewide Central Register of child

abuse or maltreatment, or who allegedly allows such injury, abuse or maltreatment to be

inicted on such child.

There is no age limitation for parents. Noncaregivers are not considered legally responsible

individuals, and thus do not meet the criteria as a subject in a registered report.

Prior to FFY 2022, perpetrator relationship was missing or unknown in approximately 6

percent of cases submitted to NCANDS. For the FFY 2022 submission, NYS revised the

programming used to determine perpetrator relationship. As result of this change, there is a

noticeable increase in the “unmarried partner of parent” relationship category.

In FFY 2022, NY reported an 11 percent decrease in the unique perpetrators. This change is

likely driven by the change in evidentiary standards described above.

Services

The State is not currently able to report the NCANDS services elds. Title XX funds are

not used for providing child preventive services in this state. Local departments of social

services provide all services, and many of those services are contracted services with various

preventive agency providers. NY does provide funding for primary prevention programs

such as the Healthy Families New York home visiting program.

New York (continued)

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 239

North Carolina

Contact Joy Smith Phone 919–527–6433

Title Data Analyst Email

joy[email protected]

Address NC Division of Social Services–Performance Mgmt Section

820 S. Boylan Avenue, 2415 Mail Service Center

Raleigh, NC 27699-2401

The state did not submit commentary for the Child Maltreatment 2022 report.

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 240

North Dakota

Contact Jenn Grabar Phone 701–328–1863

Title Child Maltreatment and Fatality Manager

Children and Family Services

[email protected]

Address North Dakota Department of Health and Human Services

600 E Boulevard Avenue, Dept 325

Bismarck, ND 58505

General

North Dakota implemented a central “hotline,” the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting

Line, for the receipt of reports of suspected child abuse and neglect in January 2021. Since

the inception of this centralized process, the number of reports received has continued to

increase, resulting in an increase in completed assessments. On August 1, 2021, there was

a change to state law and policy that provides for a denition of impending danger. North

Dakota Century Code Chapter 50-25.1-02(15) denes “impending danger” as a foreseeable

state of danger in which a behavior, attitude, motive, emotion, or situation can be reason-

ably anticipated to have severe effects on a child according to criteria developed by the

Department. Two determinations are made upon the conclusion of a child protection assess-

ment, one that determines if a child meets the denition of an abused or neglected child and

another that determines if impending danger threats are present.

The presence of impending danger threats mandate child welfare involvement through case

management (protective services), either in-home or out-of-home. The provision of protective

services is now no longer directed by substantiated maltreatment, but rather the presence of

impending danger threats to a child’s safety. Substantiated child victims remain those with

identied maltreatment. Once case management (protective services) begins, the caseworker

must continually assess the parents/caregivers, children, and alternate caregivers (when appli-

cable to the case) on an ongoing basis to ensure all needs are addressed through appropriate

services and progress towards goal achievement is being made. The state’s decrease in child

victims and perpetrators is likely due to the above-mentioned changes to statute and policy.

It is noted that although there was a decrease in identied victims, there was an increase in

those receiving prevention services.

In addition, the state’s child abuse and neglect law changed on August 1, 2021, to allow for

a child protection services decision of “Unable to Determine.” State statue denes the child

protection services decision of “unable to determine” as insufcient evidence is available to

enable a determination whether a child meets the denition of an abused or neglected child.

These assessments are coded as closed, no nding. The previous reporting period did not

include a full year of utilization of this type of report disposition, resulting in the marked

increase of this type of determination this year, as well as likely impacted decrease in other

types of assessment determinations.

State law denes three types of assessments that may be carried out in response to a report of

suspected child abuse and neglect:

■ Alternative Response Assessment–means a child protection response involving substance

exposed newborns which is designed to provide referral services to and monitor support

services for a person responsible for the child’s welfare and the substance exposed new-

born; and to develop a plan of safe care for the substance exposed newborn.

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 241

■ Child Protection Assessment–means a factnding process designed to provide informa-

tion that enables a determination of whether a child meets the denition of an abused or

neglected child, including instances that may not identify a specic person responsible for

the child’s welfare which is responsible for the abuse or neglect.

■ Family Services Assessment–means a child protection services response to reports of

suspected child abuse or neglect in which the child is determined to be at low risk and

safety concerns for the child are not evident according to guidelines developed by the

department.

The alternative response assessments are exclusive to substance exposed newborns. The

assessments are considered voluntary; however, prenatal substance exposure is a form of

neglect as identied in state law. Caregivers who decline to participate in an alternative

response assessment receive a child protection services assessment response. Other primary

reasons for an alternative response assessment to revert to a child protection services assess-

ment include a violation of the plan of safe care that places the infant in danger and the

receipt of new reports that allege a different maltreatment or victims.

The family services assessment was implemented statewide in March 2022 after being pilot

tested in four Human Service Zones. The primary suspected maltreatment receiving a family

services assessment is educational neglect. Data elements for the Alternative Response

Assessment and Family Services Assessment response have been added to the child welfare

data management system, however, they have not yet been mapped to the NCANDS Child

File. The total number of completed Alternative Response Assessments in FFY 2022 is 122.

The total number of completed Family Services Assessments in FFY 2022 is 85.

North Dakota Century Code requires that all reports of suspected child abuse and neglect

be reported to the Department of Health and Human Services through its authorized agent

and requires that any report must be accepted: “The department or authorized agent, in

accordance with rules adopted by the department, immediately shall initiate a child protec-

tion assessment, alternative response assessment, or family services assessment or cause an

assessment, of any report of child abuse and neglect, including, when appropriate, the child

protection assessment, alternative response assessment, or family services assessment of the

home or the residence of the child, any school or child care facility attended by the child, and

the circumstances surrounding the report of abuse or neglect.” The statute for child abuse

and neglect (North Dakota Century Code Chapter 50-25.1) was changed on August 1, 2021,

to allow child protection services assessment decisions as follows:

■ Conrmed–means that upon completion of a child protection assessment, the department

determines, based upon a preponderance of the evidence, that a child meets the denition

of an abused or neglected child, and the department conrms the identity of a specic

person responsible for the child’s welfare which is responsible for the abuse or neglect.

■ Conrmed With Unknown Subject–means that upon completion of a child protection

assessment, the department determines, based upon a preponderance of the evidence,

that a child meets the denition of an abused or neglected child, but the evidence does

not conrm the identity of a specic person responsible for the child’s welfare which is

responsible for the abuse or neglect.

North Dakota (continued)

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 242

■ Unable to Determine–means insufcient evidence is available to enable a determination

whether a child meets the denition of an abused or neglected child. These assessments

are coded as closed with no nding.

■ Unconrmed–means that upon completion of a child protection assessment, the depart-

ment has determined, based upon a preponderance of the evidence, that a child does not

meet the denition of an abused or neglected child.

Reports

North Dakota encompasses four American Indian Reservations. These reservations are sov-

ereign nations, each of whom maintains the reservation’s own child welfare system. Because

of this, North Dakota’s NCANDS data does not include child abuse and neglect data, or data

on child deaths from abuse or neglect or near deaths from abuse or neglect which occurred in

a tribal jurisdiction.

North Dakota statute does not allow referrals (reports) to be screened out. All referrals must

be accepted and assessed to some degree. North Dakota has an administrative assessment

process to correctly triage reports received. Data regarding the number of children included

in reports that are administratively assessed is not collected. An administrative assessment is

dened as the process for documenting the disposition of Child Protection Services Intakes

that fall outside the criteria for a report of suspected child abuse or neglect. Under this deni-

tion, reports can be administratively assessed when the concerns in the report clearly fall

outside of the state child protection law. Such circumstances include:

■ The report does not contain a credible or causal reason for suspecting the child has been

abused or neglected

■ The report does not contain sufcient information to identify or locate the child or family

(after performing due diligence)

■ There is reason to believe the reporter is willfully making a false report (these reports are

referred to the county prosecutor)

■ The concern in the report has been addressed in a prior assessment

■ The concerns are being addressed through county case management or a Department of

Health and Human Services therapist

■ Reports of pregnant women using controlled substances or abusing alcohol (when there

are no other children reported as abused or neglected) are also included in the category

of administrative assessments, as state law doesn’t allow for a decision of “conrmed”

(substantiation) in the absence of a live birth.

Assessments that are in progress when information found during the assessment indicates

the reported concerns fall outside the denitions in the child abuse and neglect law are then

terminated in progress. Reports may also be referred to another jurisdiction when the children

of the report are not physically present in the Human Service Zone (these reports are referred to

another jurisdiction (tribal, or state), where the children are present or believed to be present).

Reports involving a Native American child living on an Indian Reservation are referred to

tribal child welfare systems or to the Bureau of Indian Affairs child welfare ofce. Reports

concerning sexual abuse or physical abuse by someone who is not a person responsible for

the child’s welfare (non-caregiver) are referred to law enforcement. The total number of

administrative assessments or referrals in FFY 2022 is 11,484. This total breaks down to

North Dakota (continued)

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 243

5,700 administrative assessments; 2,435 administrative referrals; 3,61 terminated in progress

(14 were alternative response assessments terminated in progress); and 188 pregnant woman

assessments. There were 2,912 completed full assessments.

Data mapping and calculating the response time, both in the Agency File and in the Child

File, has proven to be quite challenging as there had been a signicant divergence between

the state’s administrative rule and policies and the denitions required for NCANDS report-

ing. State administrative rule was amended on April 1, 2022, to allow initiation of an assess-

ment to be done by contact with the subject of the report, by contact with the alleged abused

or neglected child or by contact with a law enforcement ofcer with jurisdiction in the loca-

tion where the child may be found or where the alleged abuse or neglect occurred. Previous

to this change, contact with the alleged abused or neglected child was not included in the

administrative code. Therefore, many assessments initiated under the previous state’s admin-

istrative rule do not meet the initiation denition in the Child File or Agency File. Child

Protection Services Policy for initiation changed with the adoption of the Safety Framework

Practice Model in December 2020, which states that initiation of child protection assessments

is face to face contact with all reported child victims, the initial face to face contact with a

victim must be completed by child welfare, is no longer allowed to be conducted prior to the

report date and the timeline for contact with victims does not exceed three days.

When response time is calculated according to state policy and administrative rule during

FFY 2022, the response time is 265 hours. Workforce challenges are present statewide with

the primary impact being higher caseloads than desired and increased response time to

reports not identifying present danger. Several agencies have numerous vacancies, result-

ing in extremely high caseloads and decreased capacity. Vacancies are being lled with a

younger, less experienced workforce, increasing the need for training and supervision.

North Dakota is a county administered system, the state can only determine the numbers

of Full- Time Equivalents (FTEs) employed by a county for certain job titles, such as Social

Worker or Family Service Specialist. These FTEs may be employed in various county

programs for varying portions of their FTE. For Example: A county employee may be a full

FTE, but ¼ time will be CPS functions, ¼ time maybe foster care, ¼ time may be in adult

services, and ¼ time may be in-in home case management. The state has no independent way

to determine what portions of the FTE are dedicated to CPS functions.

North Dakota implemented a centralized intake “hotline” (ND Central Child Abuse and

Neglect Reporting Line) for reporting suspected child abuse and neglect in January 2021. The

workforce for this unit is comprised of 15 county FTE’s. In an attempt to glean the required

information for NCANDS reporting, the state has completed a survey of the 19 Human Service

Zones (formerly county social service agencies) in which the Human Service Zones are asked

to report the number of FTEs in their agency dedicated to CPS functions. An electronic survey

was prepared in two sections, using Survey Monkey as the vehicle for collecting the data. This

survey was transmitted via email to directors of all Human Service Zones in the state. The

survey was administered in May 2022 and represents the workforce for FFY 2021. Directors

reported a total of 130 employees, including supervisors, responsible for intake and assessment.

Of these 130 FTEs, 15 were responsible for CPS intake functions, 100 were responsible for CPS

assessment functions, and 18 were responsible for supervision functions. The second portion of

North Dakota (continued)

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 244

the survey was forwarded to the workers and supervisors by the director with a request for each

worker listed by the director to complete the education/training and demographic portion of the

survey. The worker demographic and training portion of the survey was completed by 80 of the

workers/supervisors, for a response rate of 62 percent. The results of the worker demographic

portion of the report are included in the state’s CAPTA report.

Children

As mentioned, there was a decrease 16 percent in child victims this reporting period and

this is likely the result of the previously mentioned change in state statute and policy, adding

the presence of impending danger as the determining factor in accessing postassessment

protective services, rather than substantiated maltreatment. When children do not meet the

denition of an abused or neglected child, yet there is identied impending danger, protective

services to address child’s safety is now mandated, even without the maltreatment substantia-

tion. This has also resulted in an increase in children receiving preventative services.

Due to mapping requirements and limited data resources, NCANDS mapping for risk factor

data elements are limited for this reporting period. The data reporting is expected to improve

when the revised risk factor changes are mapped for NCANDS reporting. Data elds have

been added to the child welfare data management system to capture the maltreatment type

of sex trafcking as well as sex trafcking as a child risk factor. This data has not yet been

mapped for NCANDS reporting. There were zero children identied with a conrmed

maltreatment of sex trafcking in FFY 2022 and 7 children with an identied child risk

factor for sex trafcking. An identied child risk factor indicates that trafcking may have

occurred by someone who is not a “person responsible for a child’s welfare” under state law.

Child victim counts with a caregiver risk factor for alcohol abuse is 187, methamphetamine

use is 329, opioid use is 93, other drug use by caregiver is 373. Child victim risk factor counts

for prenatal exposure to alcohol is 18, prenatal exposure to methamphetamine is 105, prenatal

exposure to opioids is 27 and prenatal exposure to other drugs is 158. In addition, the child

victim risk factors for environmental exposure to methamphetamine is 320 and environmen-

tal exposure to all other drugs is 439.

The lead agency completed the process of analysis and design to incorporate data system

changes for the data reporting elements for prenatally substance exposed infants, however

appropriate mapping for NCANDS continues to be delayed for technical and resource

reasons, including priority for the development of a new child welfare data management

system. Program data reports as well as data management system development pull from the

same pool of data resources available to Health and Human Services and this is beyond the

control of the program.

According to state law a “Substance Exposed Newborn” is dened as an infant younger

than twenty-eight days of age at the time of the initial report of child abuse or neglect and

who is identied as being affected by substance abuse or withdrawal symptoms or by a fetal

alcohol spectrum disorder. The state law requires referral services and monitoring of support

services for caregivers as well as a Plan of Safe Care for the newborn, mirroring the federal

CARA legislation amending CAPTA. Notication of substance exposed newborns by health

care providers are reported as child maltreatment. State statute denes a “neglected child” as

“subject to prenatal exposure to chronic or severe use of alcohol or any controlled substance

North Dakota (continued)

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 245

as dened in section 19-03.1-01 in a manner not lawfully prescribed by a practitioner.” There

were 166 substance exposed newborns identied during FFY 2022. Of the 166 identied

substance exposed newborns, 152 of them had a Plan of Safe Care developed (92 percent); all

166 of these substance exposed newborns and their affected caregivers received some degree

of appropriate services. The most frequently identied reasons for lack of a Plan of Safe Care

included: toxicology testing conrmed the infant was not drug exposed and lack of coopera-

tion from the caregiver. There were 26 additional identied substance exposed infants (under

one year of age), those over the age of 28 days when the report/notication is received, in

FFY 2022. Of these 26 identied substance exposed infants, 25 of them had a Plan of Safe

Care developed (96 percent).

Fatalities

All fatalities were reported in the Child File. The North Dakota Department of Health and

Human Services, Children and Family Services is the agency responsible for coordination

of the statewide Child Fatality Review Panel as well as serving as the state’s child welfare

agency. The Child Maltreatment and Fatality Administrator / Prevention and Protection

serves as the Presiding Ofcer of the Child Fatality Review Panel. This dual role provides

for close coordination between these two processes and aides in the identication of child

fatalities due to child abuse and neglect as a sub-category of child fatalities from all causes.

The North Dakota Child Fatality Review Panel coordinates with the North Dakota

Department of Health and Human Services Vital Records to receive death certicates for

all children, ages 0–17 years, who receive a death certicate issued in the state. These death

certicates are screened against the child welfare database and any child who has current

or prior CPS involvement as well as any child who it can be determined is in the custody of

county Human Service Zones or the Division of Juvenile Services at the time of the death is

selected for in-depth review by the Child Fatality Review Panel, along with any child whose

Manner of Death as listed on the Death Certicate is “Accident”, “Homicide”, “Suicide” or

“Undetermined”. Any child for whom the Manner of Death is listed on the Death Certicate

as “Natural”, but whose death is identied as sudden, unexpected, or unexplained is also

selected for in-depth review. As part of these in-depth reviews, records are requested from

any agency identied in the record as having involvement with the child in the recent period

prior to death, including law enforcement, medical facilities, Child Protection Services,

the County Coroner, and the State Medical Examiner’s Ofce for each death. Under North

Dakota law, any hospital, physician, medical professional, medical facility, mental health pro-

fessional, mental health facility, school counselor, or division of juvenile services employee

shall disclose all records of that entity with respect to any child who has or is eligible to

receive a certicate of live birth and wo has died. Additionally, the State Medical Examiner’s

Ofce forensic pathologists participate in conducting the reviews. Data from each review

is collected and maintained in a separate database. It is this database that is correlated with

data extracted from the child welfare database for NCANDS reporting. Even though the

NCANDS data does not contain child welfare data concerning children in tribal jurisdiction,

the state is condent that all deaths in the state from all causes are identied, reviewed, and

reported. Another safeguard in data reporting is that the child welfare agency is also the

entity that convenes the Child Fatality Review Panel, reviews the records for each death,

compiles that data following the reviews and publishes the annual Child Fatality Review

Panel Data report as well as being responsible for NCANDS reporting.

North Dakota (continued)

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 246

Perpetrators

State law limits CPS actions to reports involving “a person responsible for a child’s welfare”,

dened as “an individual who has responsibility for the care or supervision of a child and

who is the child’s parent, an adult family member of the child, any member of the child’s

household, the child’s guardian, or the child’s foster parent; or an employee of, or any person

providing care for the child in, a child care setting. (N.D.C.C. 50-25.1-02(1)). Reports which

do not meet statutory denitions mandated to CPS, but which may be a potential viola-

tion of criminal law are to be “disposed” through referral to law enforcement (N.D.C.C.

50-25.1-05.3).

For the purposes of institutional child abuse and neglect, “a person responsible for the

child’s welfare” means an institution that has responsibility for the care or supervision of a

child. Under state statute, “Institutional child abuse or neglect” means situations of known

or suspected child abuse or neglect when the institution responsible for the child’s welfare

is a public or private school, a residential facility or setting either licensed, certied, or

approved by the department, or a residential facility or setting that receives funding from the

department. The following are excluded: correctional, medical, home and community based

residential rehabilitation and educational boarding care settings. An individual working as

facility staff is not held culpable within Institutional Child Protection Services, rather, the

facility itself is considered to be the “subject’ (perpetrator) of the report. Assessments of

institutional child abuse or neglect are assessed at the state level (DHHS) rather than at the

county (Human Service Zone) level as are CPS reports that are non-institutional. All reports

of institutional child abuse and neglect are reviewed by a multi-disciplinary State Child

Protection Team on at least a quarterly basis. Determinations of institutional child abuse

and neglect are made by team consensus. A determination of “indicated” means that a child

was abused or neglected by the facility. A decision of “not indicated” means that a child was

not abused or neglected by the facility. State law was changed on August 1, 2021, moving

individual perpetrators from public and private schools out of child protection services and

added them to institutional child protection services; thus, teachers and other education

professionals are no longer perpetrators rather the school is seen as the subject.

There were 155 reports of Institutional Child Abuse or Neglect in FFY 2022, making up 48

completed full assessments. Of these 48 assessments, 42 had a nding of “not indicated” and

6 had a nding of “indicated”. There were 68 assessments Terminated in Progress, and 36

reports were administratively assessed/administratively referred (see above under ‘reports’

for denitions of administrative assessments and referrals). Three (3) reports remained open

at the time of this report.

North Dakota reports unknown perpetrators as Unknown within the state’s child welfare

data management system (FRAME). Perpetrator IDs for unknown perpetrators are unique to

each assessment. State law allows for a child protection services assessment determination of

“conrmed with an unknown subject” which means that upon completion of a child protec-

tion assessment, the department determines, based upon a preponderance of the evidence,

that a child meets the denition of an abused or neglected child, but the evidence does not

conrm the identity of a specic person responsible for the child’s welfare which is respon-

sible for the abuse or neglect.

North Dakota (continued)

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 247

Data elds have been added to the child welfare data management system to capture sex traf-

cking by a noncaregiver. This data has not yet been mapped for NCANDS reporting. There

were 14 reported perpetrators of sex trafcking that were identied as noncaregivers.

Services

The methods for Agency File Data components 5.1 and 5.2 include only children less than

3 years of age. The number of children eligible for referral for IDEA is 111. The number of

children actually referred is 102. Of the 9 children eligible and not referred, ve (5) children

moved out of state, two (2) children had been previously referred and were receiving IDEA

services. The reason for non-referral for the remaining two children was not available.

The state has limitations when reporting reunication services. Case management services

provided by county agencies (Human Service Zones) are dependent upon correct data entry

connecting the service with the CPS assessment. Additionally, services provided through

referral to service providers outside the county agency may only be documented in narrative

form, which prohibits data extraction.

On Aug. 17, 2020, North Dakota became the seventh state in the country to receive approval

of its Family First Prevention Services Act Title IV-E Prevention Services Plan ND from the

federal Children’s Bureau. The plan provides the state access to federal Title IV-E funding

for approved evidence-based prevention services proven to strengthen and stabilize children

and families so children can stay in their family home safely. Services include both mental/

behavioral health and substance abuse treatment and recovery support services as well as

in-home parent skill-based programs. The state’s eligibility application and portal went live

February 2021 with prevention services starting March 1, 2021. There are nine approved

prevention services eligible for Tile IV-E reimbursement, they are:

■ Healthy Families

■ Parents as Teachers

■ Nurse-Family Partnership

■ Homebuilders

■ Brief Strategic Family Therapy

■ Parent-Child Interaction Therapy

■ Multisystemic Therapy

■ Functional Family Therapy

■ The Family Check-Up

Community agencies and private service providers can apply to become an approved Title

IV-E prevention services provider by completing an application. Title IV-E providers must

identify the approved Title IV-E prevention service(s) they want to provide, submit verica-

tion they have the required qualications, training, certication and/or accreditation to

provide the service, outline their delity review process, and agree to the responsibilities and

requirements set forth by ND Children and Family Services Division (CFS) and the Family

First Prevention Services Act.

North Dakota (continued)

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 248

Ohio

Contact Denielle Ell-Rittinger Phone 614–752–1143

Title Program Administrator

Ofce of Families and Children

denielle.ell-rittinger@jfs.ohio.gov

Address Ohio Department of Job and Family Services

PO Box 183204

Columbus, OH 43218–3204

General

Ohio implements a Differential Response (DR) System for screened in reports of alleged

child abuse and/or neglect. The DR system is comprised of a traditional response (TR)

pathway and an alternative response (AR) pathway. Children who are subjects of reports

assigned to the AR pathway are mapped to NCANDS as AR nonvictim and have a disposi-

tion of “AR.” Those who are “alleged child victims” of reports assigned to the TR pathway

receive a disposition:

■ Unsubstantiated—the assessment/ investigation determined no occurrence of child abuse

or neglect.

■ Substantiated—there is an admission of child abuse or neglect by the person(s) respon-

sible; an adjudication of child abuse or neglect; or other forms of conrmation deemed

valid by the Public Children Services Agency (PCSA).

■ Indicated—there is circumstantial or other isolated indicators of child abuse or neglect

lacking conrmation; or a determination by the caseworker that the child may have been

abused or neglected based upon completion of an assessment/investigation.

Reports

The number of screened out referrals between FFY 2021 and FFY 2022 showed an increase.

Ohio is a state supervised, county administered, child protection services program and does

not operate a state referral hotline. Ohio continues to operate a centralized state referral

hotline which provides the referent with the local county PCSA referral contact information.

The intake of referrals is required to be received by each county PCSA. The requirements

established for recording referral information received, completing a screening decision

of the referral, conducting assessment/investigations of alleged abuse or neglect are main-

tained per Ohio Administrative Code rules. During the review period, provisions to rules

governing face to face monthly contacts and parental visits for cases receiving ongoing

case planning services were relaxed based on federal guidance during the pandemic. When

State Emergency Orders were lifted many counties reported a workforce crisis. Ohio PCSAs

continue to have a high number of vacancies and staff turn-over. The Ohio Department of

Job and Family Services (ODJFS) have increased efforts in addressing the retainment and

recruitment of child protective services caseworkers.

The revised Ohio Child Protective Services Screening Guidelines were released on

September 7, 2022. This guide was revised and reformatted to provide child welfare profes-

sionals enhanced guidance of screening examples along with a streamlined ow within the

document, supporting the decision-making process. References to Ohio Administrative

Code (OAC) and Ohio Revised Code (ORC) were made in the beginning of each section/

sub-section of the categories to assist with decision making. Considerations for each category

have been provided to promote critical thinking during the intake and screening processes.

The revised guidelines inuence statewide consistency and serve as a training resource.

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 249

Children

Requirements to record the race/ethnicity of children in Statewide Automated Child Welfare

Information System (SACWIS) were effectuated in FFY 2015 and remain in place today.

Child victims as reported by Ohio are children who have received a disposition of substanti-

ated or indicated in the traditional response pathway.

Information is also captured at disposition. There are two identied description of harm

values addressing human trafcking; one for a child trafcked in forced labor, and the other

for a child trafcked in sex. When either is selected by the end-user, the date the incident was

reported to law enforcement is required.

Ohio continues to improve in the reporting of human trafcking. When a referral is received by

the PCSA, and human trafcking is suspected by the reporter, a “human trafcking” checkbox

is selected in Ohio SACWIS. Ohio PCSAs also have the ability to identify a case involving

human trafcking at any point during the assessment/investigation. Often referral information

received regarding a concern of child maltreatment may not be known, or identied as, human

trafcking by the reporter. Initial concerns reported may be regarding the child’s condition of

being neglected or physically abused. During the assessment/investigation processes additional

information may be gathered regarding human trafcking. If this occurs, the PCSA is required

to contact law enforcement. Information is also captured at disposition. There are two identied

description of harm values addressing human trafcking; one for a child trafcked in forced

labor, and the other for a child trafcked in sex. When either is selected by the end-user, the

date the incident was reported to law enforcement is required.

Ohio’s screening guidelines were revised to include ORC denitions of trafcking and the

criminal offenses associated to assist in screening decisions related to trafcking. Universal

human trafcking assessments for all children screened into a PCSA child abuse or neglect

report will assist in the identication of human trafcking and service provision. Human

trafcking assessments and resource links are to be added to assessment and planning tool

eld guides. The eld guides include examples of trafcking in addition to guided questions

for the caseworker. Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS) –

elements have been added to Ohio SACWIS and reporting systems to capture sex trafcking

for children in substitute care:

■ 106 Prior Victim of Sex Trafcking

■ 107 Prior Report to Law Enforcement

■ 108 Prior Date of Sex Trafcking Report to Law Enforcement

■ 109 Victim of Sex Trafcking While in Foster Care

■ 110 Report to Law Enforcement for Current Victimization

■ 111 Date of Sex Trafcking Report to Law Enforcement

Ohio’s Comprehensive Addiction Recovery Act (CARA) data collection has improved over

the past few years. Infants with prenatal substance exposure are tracked when child abuse

or neglect is reported and at the completion of the assessment/investigation in the Family

Assessment. In FFY 2022, Ohio worked toward streamlining CARA related reporting with

community partners, software developers, and other states. A mandated reporter portal is

under development. A pilot will begin Spring 2023 with a major metro county PCSA.

Ohio (continued)

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 250

Since the passage of CARA legislation in 2016, ODJFS has teamed with numerous projects,

initiatives, and workgroups to train and educate the entities who are responsible in serving

infants who are substance exposed and their families. In May of 2020, the Practice and

Policy Academy launched its work on creating a collaborative systemic approach to imple-

mentation of CARA and Plans of Safe Care (PoSC). The Practice and Policy Academy is led

by Ohio Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services and the Ohio Department of

Job and Family Services, with Children and Family Futures previously providing oversight.

The Practice and Policy Academy is comprised of participants from state agencies, state

associations, PCSAs, and other community partners that work with families experiencing

substance use during pregnancy.

In November of 2020, ODJFS, in coordination with Ohio Department of Mental Health and

Addiction Services and the Ohio Family and Children First Council, sent out a Communities

of Support grant application which supports existing and new local community planning and

coordinated service delivery efforts with CAPTA funding.

OFC is creating a standalone CARA Dashboard for PCSA and community use and is explor-

ing new CARA and plan of safe care funding opportunities for PCSAs for State Fiscal Year

2024.

Fatalities

Ohio continued to improve in the collection of data surrounding child fatalities and fewer

errors were made this year. It was determined the mandated reporters statutorily required

to participate on child fatality review boards refer cases of suspected abuse and neglect to

the local PCSA if the PCSA had not received a referral prior to the review. Thus, closing a

potential gap in Ohio’s reporting system. FFY 2022 fatality counts had an increase of 15%

from FFY 2021. Unfortunately, the overall death rate in Ohio due to violence has been on the

rise over the past few years.

Child maltreatment deaths reported in Ohio’s NCANDS submission are compiled from the

data maintained in the SACWIS. The SACWIS data contains information on those children

whose deaths were reported to a PCSA, or children involved in a CPS report who died

during the assessment or investigation period. As a county administered CPS system, Ohio

PCSAs have discretion of which referrals are accepted for assessment or investigation. In

some cases, the PCSA will not investigate a child fatality report unless it is deemed there

was suspected abuse or neglect or other children in the home who may be at risk of harm or

require services. Referrals of child deaths due to suspected maltreatment not accepted by the

PCSA are investigated by law enforcement.

No policy changes were made regarding child fatality reviews for this reporting period.

The ODJFS internal fatality review team was able to continue meeting virtually. ODJFS is

researching ways to improve our internal fatality review team.

Ohio (continued)

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 251

Perpetrators

The NCANDS category of “other” perpetrator relationship includes nonrelated (NR) child

and NR adult. These are catch-all categories that can be used for an individual who is not a

family member. Guidance continues to be provided to agencies to select the most appropriate

relationship code (e.g., neighbor) instead of using the nonrelated categories.

Ohio does report noncaregiver perpetrators of sex trafcking to NCANDS in the “other”

category as described above. These cases are also tracked at disposition and the date they

were referred to law enforcement entered.

Services

Ohio is continually working to improve the recording of services data in the SACWIS.

Federal grant funds are used for state level program development and support to county

agencies providing direct services to children and families.

Ohio successfully implemented phase one of the Family First Prevention Services Act

(FFPSA) on October 1, 2021. Ohio secured funding for a pilot of the program which ran

April 1, 2021, through October 1, 2021, funded by the Family First Transition Act which was

also part of a bipartisan federal budget bill. Ohio secured a vendor, the Center of Excellence

to ensure statewide capacity building of evidence-based practice models for multi-system

therapy and family functional therapy and to monitor for delity to their model. Ohio’s state

plan was approved for the use of the evidence-based practices known as OhioSTART for

families struggling with substance abuse; Healthy Families America and Parents as Teachers

to help those families in need of in-home parenting-based services. Ohio is moving forward

with amending its State Plan and implementing phase two which will include the evidence-

based programs Triple P Parenting and Motivational Interviewing.

Ohio (continued)

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 252

Oklahoma

Contact Elizabeth Roberts Phone 405–850–6994

Title Programs Manager II, Child Welfare Services Email

[email protected]

Address Oklahoma Department of Human Services

P.O. Box 25352

Oklahoma City, OK 73125

General

Throughout FFY 2022 OKDHS continued to transform through an intense focus on transpar-

ency and innovation and our commitment to improve the trajectory of Oklahoma families.

OKDHS continues to modernize our real estate footprint to position OKDHS to be even

more scally efcient while adding what we call “access points” for our customers by

embedding our workforce with community partners in locations convenient for people who

need our services. Oversized buildings are being traded for intentionally designed spaces to

better serve customers and our workforce. Using our True North Executive Strategies, we are

building pathways to support, empower and celebrate our staff so they can be more creative

and innovative in their work to serve vulnerable children and families. OKDHS continues to

support a family-strengthening system to help ensure safe homes for all children including

safety, well-being and connections to family, community and cultures; and we tirelessly

pursue every child’s right to connect to a stable and loving family and the support they need

to grow and develop into healthy adults.

In FFY 2022, CWS began the implementation of the Oklahoma Title IV-E Prevention

Program Plan, an optional prevention program authorized through the Family First

Prevention and Services Act, securing ongoing funding for prevention programs and services

to prevent the need for foster care placement, and elevating quality improvement and evalu-

ation of prevention programs. OKDHS is focusing on in-home parent skill-based programs,

SafeCare® and Intercept®, that have been well established within the infrastructure of the

child welfare system and contracted with community-based providers with an established

history of serving families involved with the CW system who have experienced child

maltreatment. These contracted community-based services support the promotion of health,

safety and wellness of Oklahoma’s children and families preventatively, as well as to help

reunite families whose children are in out-of-home care. During the reporting period October

1, 2021 through September 30, 2022 statewide 1,857 families received SafeCare® and 347

families received Intercept®.

OKDHS aims to not bring more families into the CW system, but rather improve prevention

practices and enhance and expand the services and supports that allow for more families to

be served in Family-Centered Services (FCS) and not within foster care. FCS focuses on

prevention and protection to prevent maltreatment so a child can remain with their family

and in their community. CWS continues to utilize multiple strategies toward improving

safety decision-making and increasing positive outcomes for children and families while

also building capacity to accurately identify safety threats, provide appropriate services to

eliminate safety threats, and improve parental protective capacities. Oklahoma has continued

to strengthen programs and services to achieve measurable outcomes that are focused on

prevention and protection to prevent maltreatment and unnecessary removal of children from

their families and placed into foster care through the goals, objectives, and strategies outlined

in the 2020–2024 Child and Family Services Plan (CFSP).

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 253

It is critical to note that both the delivery of in-home services and data collection have

continued to be affected by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. During this reporting period,

OKDHS and the contracted service providers have experienced workforce shortages that

have resulted in less capacity to provide prevention services for families. CWS Programs,

along with support through the existing CWS CQI/QA, continues to collaborate with regional

leadership and contracted services providers to support them towards improved outcomes

of child safety, permanency and well-being, parent/kin caregiver well-being, prevention of

future child maltreatment, and entry into foster care.

Four bills related to Child Welfare Services were passed during the 2022 legislative session.

Of note, HB 2992 adjusts various references to the testimony of child witnesses in certain

court cases, removes references to specic ages, provides general denitions of children in

law, and permits guardians ad litem to be present during proceedings.

Reports

The Oklahoma Department of Human Services has a statewide, centralized hotline to receive

child abuse and neglect reports. An allegation of child abuse or neglect reported in any man-

ner to a DHS county ofce is immediately referred to the Hotline.

Each report received at the Hotline is screened to determine whether the allegations meet

the denition of child abuse or neglect and are within the scope of child protective services

(CPS) assessment or investigation. DHS responds to an accepted report of child abuse or

neglect by initiating an assessment of the family or an investigation of the report in accor-

dance with priority guidelines. The primary purpose of the assessment or investigation is the

protection of the child. For assessments or investigations, DHS gives special consideration to

the risks of any minor child, including a child with a disability, who is vulnerable due to his

or her inability to communicate effectively about abuse, neglect, or any safety threat.

A Priority I report indicates the child is in present danger and at risk of serious harm or

injury. Allegations of abuse and neglect may be severe and conditions extreme. The situation

is responded to immediately, the same day the report is received. Priority II is assigned to all

other reports. The response time is established based on the vulnerability and risk of harm to

the child. Priority II assessments or investigations are initiated within two – to 10-calendar

days from the date the report is accepted for assessment or investigation.

An assessment is conducted when a report meets the abuse or neglect guidelines but does not

constitute a serious and immediate safety threat to a child. An assessment is a comprehensive

review of child safety and evaluation of family functioning and protective capacities conducted

in response to a child abuse or neglect report that does not allege a serious and immediate safety

threat to a child. The assessment uses the same comprehensive review to address allegations,

identify behaviors and conditions in the home that lead to risk factors; and evaluate the protective

capacities of the person responsible for the child’s health, safety, or welfare to address the safety

needs of each child in the family. Assessments do not have ndings. When a child is determined

unsafe in the initial stages of the assessment and the family’s circumstances or the person respon-

sible for care’s (PRFC) behavior poses a risk to the child, an investigation is immediately initiated

by the Child Welfare specialist. The family is told an investigation rather than an assessment is

necessary and the CW specialist immediately follows investigation protocol.

Oklahoma (continued)

Appendix d: State Commentary 254

Child Maltreatment 2022

An investigation is conducted when:

■ a report meets the abuse or neglect guidelines and constitutes a serious and immediate

threat to the safety of a child

■ there have been three or more reports accepted for assessment or investigation regarding

the family

■ the family has been the subject of a deprived petition; or

■ the child was diagnosed with fetal alcohol syndrome or DHS determines the child meets

the denition of drug-endangered child.

Reports that are appropriate for screening out and are not accepted for assessment or investi-

gation are reports:

■ that clearly fall outside the denitions of abuse and neglect per OAC 340:75-3-120, includ-

ing minor injury to a child 10 years of age and older who has no signicant child abuse

and neglect history or history of neglect that would be harmful to a young or disabled

child, but poses less of a threat to a child 10 years of age and older;

■ concerning a victim 18 years of age or older, unless the victim is in voluntary placement

with DHS;

■ where there is insufcient information to locate the family and child;

■ where there is an indication that the family needs assistance from a social service agency

but there is no indication of child abuse or neglect;

■ that indicate a child 6 years of age or older is spanked on the buttocks by a foster or trial

adoptive parent with no unreasonable force used or injuries observed;

■ that indicate the alleged perpetrator of child abuse or neglect is not a PRFC, there is no

indication the PRFC failed to protect the child, and the report is referred to local law

enforcement; and

■ the family resides on tribal land includes tribal members or the family is a tribal foster

home with placement of only tribal custody children and the tribe accepted jurisdiction of

the investigation.

■ Allegations concerning the same incident received from the same or a different reporter

are considered duplicate reports and may be screened out and associated with the original

assigned assessment or investigation.

Allegations concerning the same child and family received within 45 calendar days of a

previously accepted and assigned report are considered subsequent reports and may be

screened out and the allegations addressed in the on-going report, unless the subsequent

report contains allegations of a child death, child near death, child trafcking, or sexual

abuse to a child by a PRFC or other adult who has close contact or access to the child. These

are not screened out as subsequent and the allegations are investigated in a new report.

Children

Oklahoma denes a child as any unmarried person younger than 18 years of age, including

an infant born alive. A drug endangered child is dened as a child who is at risk of suffer-

ing physical, psychological, or sexual harm as a result of the use, possession, distribution,

manufacture, or cultivation of controlled dangerous substances or the attempt of any of these

acts by a Person Responsible For Care (PRFC).

Oklahoma (continued)

Appendix d: State Commentary 255

Child Maltreatment 2022

■ (This term includes circumstances wherein the PRFC’s substance use or abuse interferes

with his or her ability to parent and provide a safe and nurturing environment for the child.

■ Every physician, surgeon, or other health care professional including doctors of medicine,

licensed osteopathic physicians, residents and interns, any other health care professional,

or midwife involved in the pre-natal care of expectant mothers or the delivery or care of

infants who test positive for alcohol or a controlled dangerous substance, must promptly

report the matter to the DHS. This includes infants who are diagnosed with neonatal

abstinence syndrome or fetal alcohol spectrum disorder.

■ Whenever DHS determines that a child meets the denition of a “drug-endangered child”

or was diagnosed with neonatal abstinence syndrome or fetal alcohol spectrum disorder,

and the referral is assigned, DHS conducts an investigation of the allegations and does not

limit the evaluation of the circumstances to an assessment.

■ Whenever DHS determines an infant is diagnosed with neonatal abstinence syndrome or

fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, DHS develops a plan of safe care that addresses the infant

and affected family member or caregiver and, at a minimum, their health and substance

use or abuse treatment needs.

Oklahoma denes a “plan of safe care” as a plan developed for an infant with neonatal absti-

nence syndrome or a fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, upon release from healthcare provider

care that addresses the infant’s and mother’s or caregiver’s health and substance use or abuse

treatment needs.

Oklahoma denes a “substance exposed infant” as a newborn who tests positive for alcohol

or a controlled dangerous substance with the exception of substances administered under

the care of a physician. Oklahoma denes “substance affected infant” as one who was born

experiencing withdrawal symptoms as a result of prenatal drug exposure or fetal alcohol

spectrum disorder as determined by the direct health care provider.

Fatalities

Oklahoma investigates all reports of child death and near death that are alleged to be the

result of abuse or neglect. When DHS has reasonable cause to suspect that a child death or

near-death is the result of abuse or neglect, DHS noties the Governor, the President Pro

Tempore of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the initial inves-

tigative ndings of the child protective services review. Notice is communicated securely no

later than 24 hours after the reasonable determination of suspicion.

A nal determination of death or near death due to abuse or neglect is made after a report

is received from the ofce of the medical examiner which may extend beyond a 12-month

period. Fatalities are not reported to NCANDS until both the investigation and Child Protective

Services program review, which is inclusive of the nal determination, are completed.

The Child Protective Services Programs Unit program review includes:

■ a review of the case record which is inclusive of the Report to District Attorney; law

enforcement reports; medical examiner’s Report of Autopsy; medical records pertain-

ing to the death or near-death and previous records when applicable; all pertinent case

information.

Oklahoma (continued)

Appendix d: State Commentary 256

Child Maltreatment 2022

■ an assessment of compliance of ndings with CPS standards.

■ requests for additional information when determined necessary.

The Oklahoma Child Death Review Board conducts a review of every child death and near

death in Oklahoma. The Bureau of Vital Statistics forwards all death certicates of persons

under 18 years of age to the Ofce of the Chief Medical Examiner monthly, received during

the preceding month. The Ofce of the Chief Medical Examiner conducts an initial review of

death certicates in accordance to the criteria established by the Child Death Review Board

and refers to the Board cases that meet the criteria.

The Child Death Review Board is composed of 27 members or designees. Fourteen mem-

bers are specied positions, including the Chief Medical Examiner, the Director of the

Department of Human Services, the State Commissioner of Health, the State Epidemiologist

of the State Department of Health, the Director of the Oklahoma State Bureau of

Investigation, and the Chair of the Child Protection Committee of the Children’s Hospital of

Oklahoma. Thirteen of the members are appointed and include law enforcement, attorneys,

social workers, physicians, advocacy, a psychologist, and emergency medical personnel. State

Ofce Child Protective Services staff work closely with the Child Death Review Board and

participate as a member of this board.

Perpetrators

Oklahoma denes a person responsible for the child’s health, safety, or welfare (PRFC) as:

■ the child’s parent, legal guardian, custodian, or foster parent;

■ a person 18 years of age or older with whom the child’s parent cohabitates or any other

adult residing in the home of the child;

■ an agent or employee of a public or private residential home, institution, facility, or day

treatment program;

■ an owner, operator, or employee of a childcare facility whether the home is licensed or

unlicensed; or

■ a foster parent maintaining a therapeutic, emergency, specialized-community, tribal, kin-

ship, or foster family home responsible for providing care, supervision, guidance, rearing,

and other foster care services to a child.

A referral to law enforcement is immediately made either verbally or in writing for the pur-

pose of conducting a possible criminal investigation when, upon receipt of a report alleging

abuse, neglect, or during the assessment or investigation, DHS determines:

■ the alleged perpetrator is someone other than a PRFC (third-party perpetrator)

■ abuse or neglect of the child does not appear attributable to failure on the part of a PRFC

to provide protection for the child.

After making the referral to the appropriate law enforcement jurisdiction, DHS is not respon-

sible for further investigation unless:

■ DHS has reason to believe, or law enforcement has determined that the alleged perpetrator

is a parent of another child, not the subject of the criminal investigation, or is a PRFC of

another child;

Oklahoma (continued)

Appendix d: State Commentary 257

Child Maltreatment 2022

■ The appropriate law enforcement jurisdiction requests DHS participate in the investiga-

tion. When funds and personnel are available, as determined by the DHS Director or

designee, DHS may assist law enforcement in interviewing children alleged to be victims

of physical or sexual abuse.

A prior perpetrator is dened as a perpetrator of a substantiated maltreatment within the

reporting year who has also been a perpetrator in a substantiated maltreatment anytime

back to 1995, the year of implementation of the State Automated Child Welfare Information

System.

Oklahoma reports all unknown perpetrators. “Other” perpetrator relationship includes those

with no relation to the alleged victim and roommate.

Services

Through the CPS safety evaluation and investigation process a nding as to the allegation

of child abuse and neglect is made, along with a determination of the safety of the child in

the home, the protective capacities of the person responsible for the child, and appropriate

ongoing service needs for the family. CPS, through the safety evaluation and investigation

process, determines the need for child abuse and neglect prevention and intervention-related

services and what CW intervention would be the least-restrictive, least-intrusive that

ensures the child is safe. Ongoing service options include a determination that no services

are needed, a referral for community-based services, opening a FCS case, or foster care. In

addition to ISS, SafeCare®, and Intercept®, OKDHS contracts with twelve service providers

for families and children involved in the CW system through CPS or ongoing prevention and

intervention-related services through FCS and Permanency Planning for parents’ assistance

and sexual abuse treatment services. During the reporting period October 1, 2021, through

September 30, 2022, statewide 1268 families received parents assistance services and 486

families received sexual abuse treatment services.

Oklahoma (continued)

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 258

Oregon

Contact Tammy Freeman Phone 503–884–1049

Title Business Analyst Email

tammy.freeman@state.or.us

Address Dept of Human Services Child Welfare

500 Summer St.

Salem, OR 97304

The state did not submit commentary for the Child Maltreatment 2022 report.

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 259

Pennsylvania

Contact Elysa Springer Phone 717–409–3933

Title Director of Systems and Data Management Email

elyspringe@pa.gov

Address Bureau of Policy, Programs and Operations,

Division of Systems and Data Management

Ofce of Children, Youth and Families

2525 North 7th Street

Harrisburg Uptown Building

Harrisburg, PA 17110

General

In Pennsylvania, only General Protective Services (GPS) referrals may be screened out. GPS

data is not currently included in Pennsylvania’s NCANDS submission. Reports of suspected

child abuse are not able to be screened out.

Reports

Pennsylvania saw that the total reports of child abuse are increasing to a rate that is more

consistent with totals prior to the pandemic. This was expected, following the decrease in

the total reports during the height of the pandemic, which we attributed to limited/reduced

contact between children and mandated reporters of suspected child abuse.

Children

Again, it can be said that we are observing a re-stabilization of our total numbers of sus-

pected abuse reports following the COVID-19 pandemic.

Fatalities

Our Child Welfare Information System (CWIS) only contains the child abuse investigation

outcome for the referral involving the fatality. The fatality records in the NCANDS populations

all rise to the level of suspected child abuse under the Child Protective Services Law (CPSL). A

death which does not rise to the level of a suspected child abuse referral may be captured in the

system under a different referral type if it does not rise to the level of suspected child abuse, but

it is not tracked as a fatality by our system.

Perpetrators

A perpetrator is dened as a person who has committed child abuse as dened in this sec-

tion. The following shall apply:

(1) The term includes only the following:

(i) A parent of the child.

(ii) A spouse or former spouse of the child’s parent.

(iii) A paramour or former paramour of the child’s parent.

(iv) A person 14 years of age or older and responsible for the child’s welfare or having

direct contact with children as an employee of child-care services, a school or

through a program, activity or service.

(v) An individual 14 years of age or older who resides in the same home as the child.

(vi) An individual 18 years of age or older who does not reside in the same home as the

child but is related within the third degree of consanguinity or afnity by birth or

adoption to the child.

(vii) An individual 18 years of age or older who engages a child in severe forms of traf-

cking in persons or sex trafcking, as those terms are dened under section 103 of

the Trafcking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 1466, 22 U.S.C. § 7102).

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 260

(2) Only the following may be considered a perpetrator for failing to act, as provided in this

section:

(i) A parent of the child.

(ii) A spouse or former spouse of the child’s parent.

(iii) A paramour or former paramour of the child’s parent.

(iv) A person 18 years of age or older and responsible for the child’s welfare.

(v) A person 18 years of age or older who resides in the same home as the child.

Pennsylvania’s records would include any incidents of sex trafcking which have a perpetra-

tor who meets the legal denition of a perpetrator of child abuse.

Services

Pennsylvania plans to opt into the Family First Prevention Services Act Title IV-E Prevention

Program and is revising the state ve-year prevention plan for nal submission to the

Administration for Children and Families. Once this plan is approved, Pennsylvania will

begin claiming reimbursement for eligible prevention services. Pennsylvania continues to

incentivize use of evidence-based services to support prevention through the existing special

grants initiative. This initiative provides a higher state funding match for county use of

evidence-based programs, truancy prevention programs, housing support and other promis-

ing practices when compared for the state funding match made available for other service

categories. However, these plans do not impact NCANDS submission data, as preventa-

tive service data is maintained at the county level, and therefore not included in the state

NCANDS submission.

Pennsylvania is state supervised, and county administered for child welfare. As such,

services are provided by the counties and not by the state. Pennsylvania’s Child Protective

Services Law allows for counties to outsource nearly all services except for child abuse

investigation and general protective services assessments. There are many counties within

Pennsylvania who select to outsource services and the counties hold the contracts for these

services, not the state. Again, NCANDS data is not impacted by this information, due to the

fact that this data is currently maintained within the county systems and not the state Child

Welfare Information System, and therefore is not currently part of Pennsylvania’s NCANDS

data submission.

Pennsylvania (continued)

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 261

Puerto Rico

Contact Lisa M. Agosto Carrasquillo/Glenda Gerena Ríos Phone

Title Director of Central Registry/ Administrator ADFAN Email

[email protected].gov

glenda.gerena@familia.pr.gov

Address Division Administrator for Families and Children (ADFAN)

Family Department

185 Roosevelt Avenue, San Juan PR 00910

The Puerto Rico Department of the Family (DF) is the agency of the Government of Puerto

Rico responsible for the provision of the diversity and /or a variety of social welfare ser-

vices. As an umbrella agency, four Administrations operate with scal and administrative

autonomy.

The Department of the Family composition is as follows:

■ Ofce of the Secretary

■ Administration for Children and Families- ACF (ADFAN, Spanish acronym)

■ Administration of the Socioeconomic Development of the Family (ADSEF, Spanish

acronym)

■ Child Support Administration (ASUME, Spanish acronym), enacted by PL 86, August 17,

1994

■ Administration for Integral Development of Childhood (ACUDEN, Spanish acronym)

PL-179 August 1, 2003

The Administrations are agencies dedicated to executing the public policy established by the

Secretary, in the different priority areas of services to children and their families including the

elderly population in Puerto Rico. It establishes the standards, norms, and procedures to man-

age the programs and provide the operation and supervision of the Integrated Services Centers

(ISC) at the local levels. The regional levels (10 regional ofces) supervise the local ofces.

They are also responsible for implementing and developing those functions delegated by the

Secretary through the redenition and reorganization of the variety of services for the family

including traditional services and the creation of new methods and strategies for respond-

ing to the needs of families. Work plans are prepared in agreement with the directives and

require nal approval of the Secretary.

Administration for Children and Families (ADFAN):

The functions and responsibilities of ADFAN are executed through the following program-

matic and administrative components:

■ Administrator’s Ofce

■ Assistant Administration for Adults and Community Services

■ Assistant Administration for Prevention and Community Services

■ Assistant Administration for Child Protective Services,

■ Family Preservation and Support Services

■ Assistant Administration for Foster Care and Adoption

Assistant Administration for Child Protective Services

The Assistant Administration for Child Protective Services is responsible for the investiga-

tion of intra-familial and institutional CA/N referrals. As one of its primary components,

the State Center for the Protection of Children is responsible for the operation of the Child

Abuse and Neglect Hotline and the Orientation and Family Support Hotline. Both lines are

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 262

787–625–4900 X 1734/1800

responsible for providing an expedited system of communication to receive family and/or

institutional referrals and to provide orientation and crisis intervention in different areas of

family life. It also operates the Central Registry, which maintains updated statistical and

programmatic information about the movement of CAN referrals and cases receiving ser-

vices by ADFAN.

General

In Puerto Rico it has not been established changes in policy processes related to child

abuse investigations. Puerto Rico does not have an alternative response in child abuse

investigations.

Reports

This year did not reect a signicant change compared to the previous year. The percentage

difference was 3 percent less this year in reports.

The call screening process has not changed. The protocol establishes the entire procedure

involved in handling calls received on the hotline and the questions to better screen the

decision-making process when accepting referrals for social investigation.

Stage One: Receipt of Referral

The process involving the collection of information at the Abuse, Institutional Abuse,

Neglect and Neglect Hotline or local ofce, screening of the referral, assignment of response

priority and transfer to the appropriate work unit shall not exceed a time frame of two (2)

hours from the receipt of the call. This procedure shall be applicable to any situation in which

abuse is alleged in a family home, foster home or family resource home.

The hotline management in coordination with the agency establishes plans to offer training

to new staff.

The number of employees is calculated using the equivalent of full time This calculation is

used in the direct line and with all staff dedicated to referral research in the agency.

Children

The number of child victims decreased this year compared to the previous year.

The MANUAL OF RULES, PROCEDURES AND RULES OF EXECUTION OF THE

SECURITY MODEL IN THE INVESTIGATION OF REFERRALS reviewed in April

2013, establishes the fundamental objectives of the child maltreatment referral investigation

process:

■ To assess the safety of the child.

■ To take immediate protective actions as necessary.

■ Determine the disposition of the referral.

This process involves the evaluation of all children in a referred family. The interview proto-

col establishes the parties to be interviewed and the children to be evaluated, considering the

essential objectives of the investigation.

Puerto Rico (continued)

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 263

The data related to any alcohol abuse child risk factor or drug abuse child risk factor can be

collected through data entry in investigation of referrals and case management. The alcohol

abuse and drugs abuse area are collected separate.

Our information system has the option to collect data in both areas, sex trafcking and

prenatal child victims of substance abuse. We have been able to identify them in recent years

as they are correctly documented in our system, perhaps the limitation is in the data entry by

the workers. For this reason, we are directed to emphasize the importance of this information

and what it implies for the child victim.

Fatalities

Puerto Rico works in collaboration with other agencies such as; police and justice department,

forensic sciences for the collection of information on child deaths. Generally, it is the external

agencies that validate child abuse deaths and collaborate with our agency in this area.

In PR, generally, deaths of minors are reported through the direct line even when there is no

suspected allegation of abuse or neglect. In these cases, a social emergency is activated for

due intervention and if an allegation of abuse or neglect is identied, a referral is generated.

Perpetrators

In PR there is no policy as to how young a perpetrator can be. We included the perpetrators

who are other caregivers; staff of institution for children, school, foster care, childcare and

others institution responsibility for the care, education, supervision, and treatment of physical

and emotional needs, as dened by our protection law.

Our system has the capacity to collect data related to sex trafcking, these data are cata-

logued in the typologies, however, our protection law only catalogues situations of sex traf-

cking when the perpetrator is a parent or caregiver, but not a third party or non-caregiver.

Services

Prevention Services

Gender violence prevention services were offered to women and men (of any age) and their

children, through private non-prot organizations and municipalities committed to eradicat-

ing this problem. These services under the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act,

which is legislation that promotes the development of innovative projects aimed at achieving

a better quality of life for victims of gender violence and their children, to prevent family

violence and provide alternative services such as shelters and support for victims and their

dependents, reduce the incidence of deaths from gender violence, and raise community

awareness of the problem of family violence.

The Family and Children’s Administration, through the Auxiliary Administration for

Community Prevention, entered into collaborative agreements with governmental and non-

governmental entities, especially with agencies interested in providing support services to

survivors of domestic violence and their children.

Puerto Rico (continued)

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 264

At least 95 percent of the funds are granted to nonprot institutions, municipalities and

government agencies that offer services. Additional services with FVPSA funds:

■ Parent cafés: Strategies such as “parent cafés”, which are held weekly on Facebook, allow

us to reach more people. Community cafés are another activity made possible by these

funds, addressing prevention issues and strengthening the leadership of the participants.

■ Individual and/or group support services for women victims or survivors of domestic

violence. FVPSA grants enabled us to provide individual and/or group support services to

women victims or survivors of domestic violence.

■ Psychotherapy support program: This service is designed for victims and their children,

and individual and group psychotherapy for perpetrators. Both programs are operated by a

clinical psychologist with experience in domestic violence issues.

Supplementary funds FVPSA- ARP (COVID 19)

■ The FVPSA Covid-19 grant has allowed for individual counseling in atypical cases, such

as male victims or female victims, with an expert in forensic social work, sexual abuse

assessment and staff trained to provide these services.

■ The FVPSA Covid-19 grants allowed for virtual conferences on topics related to violence

prevention in times of pandemic, impacting the community at large throughout the island.

■ The provision of uninterrupted services to sheltered women and their children in a safe

environment has been completed. Purchase the necessary equipment and materials for risk

mitigation in the face of Covid-19. Provide prevention services to the community from an

equity perspective with trained staff and offer nursing services to all refugees, thus giving

continuity to the coordination of medical services.

■ Provide training for victims and survivors of domestic violence on self-esteem, skills

development and creativity so that they can become economically independent and earn

income to support their families.

■ Virtual services such as educational videoconferences for the community on topics related

to covid-19 and how it affects families suffering from domestic violence and child abuse,

how to prevent it, vaccination and other topics through Facebook Live. Expressive art

workshops were offered at Zoom.

Not all services, only some support services are contracted, for example, for coaching and

training, technical assistance, investigation of referrals in arrears, case management in areas

with larger numbers of families and as complementary support and legal assistance, among

others.

Child removals were not affected. The agency took the necessary precautions. In the case of

removals as a result of a report investigation, the Investigations Units oversaw following the

procedure, including the location of the children. In the case of removals in active agency

cases, each Region had a plan for dealing with these situations through the associate director.

Violencia Familiar (2002PRFVC3) was helpful during the pandemic.

The Administration for Families and Children, Department of Families, delegated funds to

all its community-based organizations for the provision of integrated services to vulnerable

sectors of the country. The primary population served was battered women with their chil-

dren who are victims of child abuse. The American Rescue Plan was another fund received

and used to expand and extend support services to underserved communities.

Puerto Rico (continued)

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 265

Some support services are contracted, for example, for coaching and training, technical

assistance, investigation of referrals in arrears, case management in areas with larger num-

bers of families and as complementary support and legal assistance, among others.

Puerto Rico (continued)

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 266

Rhode Island

Contact Leon Saunders Phone 401–528–3850

Title Agency IT Manager

Information Technology

[email protected]

Address RI Department of Children, Youth and Families

101 Friendship St.

Providence, RI 02903

General

In November of 2019, DCYF implemented the SAFE Practice Model across all divisions. In

CPS, the model determines child safety through an assessment of family functioning and

caregiver capacities. The practice shifts from making safety determinations based primarily

on the absence or presence of an incident of maltreatment to an assessment of the needs and

strengths of each family member. Investigations are documented using a Family Functioning

Assessment which addresses specic areas of functioning for all children and their caregiv-

ers. This assessment identies safety threats and protective capacity, creates the basis for

safety plans when appropriate, and identies behavioral changes required to mitigate those

safety threats. For families transferred to on-going Family Service Units, those behavioral

changes formulate the foundation for service plans. Safety is re-assessed throughout the

life of a case through the On-going Family Functioning Assessment which re-assesses the

areas safety addressed by CPS in the Family Functioning Assessment. The model shifts the

practice in our Family Service Units from making decisions about safety and permanency

based on compliance with services to the identication of positive behavioral changes and a

network of informal supports for the family.

Rhode Island does not have two types of response to screened-in referrals. All reports

meeting criteria for a CPS investigation are screened in for investigation. The criteria for an

investigation are:

Investigation Criteria 1- Child Abuse/Neglect (CA/N) Report – RIGL 40-11-3 requires the

Department to immediately investigate reports of child abuse and neglect. The circumstances

reported, if true, must constitute child abuse/neglect as dened by RIGL 40-11-2.

Investigation Criteria 2: Non-Relative Caregiver – RIGL 42-72.1-4 requires that no parent

assigns or otherwise transfers to another, not related to him or her by blood or marriage,

his or her rights or duties with respect to the permanent care and custody of his or her child

under eighteen years of age unless duly authorized by an order or decree of the court.

Investigation Criteria 3: Sexual Abuse of a Child by Another Child – RIGL 40-11-3 requires

the Department to immediately investigate sexual abuse of a child by another child.

Investigation Criteria 4: Duty to Warn – RIGL 42-72-8 allows the Department to release

information if it is determined that there is a risk of physical injury by a person to himself/

herself or others and that disclosure of the records is necessary to reduce that risk. If the

Hotline receives a report that a perpetrator of sexual abuse or serious physical abuse has

access to another child in a family dwelling, that report is classied as an investigation and

assigned for investigation.

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 267

Investigation Criteria 5: Alert to Area Hospitals, Safety of Unborn Child – RIGL 42-72-8

allows the Department to release information if it is determined that there is a risk of

physical injury by a person to himself/herself or others and that disclosure of the records is

necessary to reduce that risk. The Department issues an alert to area hospitals when a parent

has a history of substantiated child abuse/neglect or a child abuse/neglect conviction and

there is concern about the safety of a child.

Investigation Criteria 6: Serious, Critical Injury, Child Near Fatality or Child Fatality-

Serious, critical injury of a child, near child fatality or Child Fatality. Under RIGL 40-11-3.1

the Department is required to investigate all instances of child fatalities or near fatalities in

which child abuse or neglect is suspected to be a contributing factor regardless of whether the

family is currently active or has ever received services from the Department.

Under RIGL 40-11-3.1 the Department is required to investigate all instances of child fatali-

ties or near fatalities in which child abuse or neglect is suspected to be a contributing factor

regardless of whether the family is currently active or has ever received services from the

Department.

§ 40-11-3.3. Duty to report — Sexual abuse of a child in an educational program.

(a) Any person who has reasonable cause to know or suspect that any child has been the

victim of sexual abuse by an employee, agent, contractor, or volunteer of an educational

program as dened in § 40-11-2 shall, within twenty-four (24) hours, transfer that informa-

tion to the department of children, youth and families, or its agent; provided, however,

that if the person mandated to report is an employee, agent, contractor, or volunteer of an

educational program as dened in § 40-11-2, they shall immediately notify the principal,

headmaster, executive director, or other person in charge of the educational program, or his

or her designated agent. The principal, headmaster, executive director, or other person in

charge of the educational program, or his or her designated agent, shall be responsible for all

subsequent notication to the department of children, youth and families, or its agent in the

manner required by this section. In the case of a public educational program, the principal,

headmaster, executive director, or other person in charge of the educational program, or his

or her designated agent, shall also notify the superintendent of the public educational pro-

gram. Any transferred information shall include the name, title, and contact information for

every employee, agent, contractor, or volunteer of the educational program who is believed to

have direct knowledge of the allegation. Nothing in this section is intended to require more

than one report from any educational program for a specic incident.

(b) To provide guidance and consistency in reporting, the commissioner of elementary and

secondary education shall promulgate policies and procedures for the creation and handling

of reports made by the principal, headmaster, executive director, or other person in charge of

the educational program, or his or her designated agent to carry out the intent of this section.

the report to state police and local law enforcement and shall initiate an investigation of the

allegations of sexual abuse if it determines that the report meets the criteria for a child pro-

tective services investigation. As a result of those reports and referrals, the department shall

refer those children to appropriate services and support systems to provide for their health

Rhode Island (continued)

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 268

and welfare. In the event the department substantiates the allegations of sexual abuse against

an employee, agent, contractor, or volunteer of an educational program, the department shall

immediately notify the state police; the local law enforcement agency; the department of

education; the educational program; the person who is the subject of the investigation; and

the parent, or parents, of the child who is alleged to be the victim of the sexual abuse of the

department’s ndings.

Sexually exploits the child in that the person allows, permits, or encourages the child

to engage in prostitution as dened by the provisions in § 11-34.1-1 et seq., entitled

“Commercial Sexual Activity”. “Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children (CSEC)” refers

to a range of crimes and activities involving the sexual abuse or exploitation of a child for the

nancial benet of any person or in exchange for anything of value (including monetary and

non-monetary benets) given or received by any person.

Reports

The Structured Decision Making tool was implemented in 2019 and staff were re-trained on

the SDM Hot Line Screening Tool in 2022. The Tool guide and automated tool were edited to

include clear language to describe maltreatment types as dened in RI General Law. Under

RI General Laws, anyone who has a reasonable suspicion that a child has been maltreated has

24 hours to make a report to the DCYF CPS Hot Line. The Hot Line is in operation seven

days per week, 24 hours per day and is staffed by Child Protective Investigators. All calls

are recorded, and reporters may remain anonymous. The investigator takes the information

from the reporter and uses the Structured Decision-Making screening tool. Based on the tool,

reports are screened out or assigned for investigation within the designated response priority

times.

Children

Any child who is a household member or was a member of the household at the time of the

alleged maltreatment must be interviewed by a Child Protective Investigator to assess child

safety.

The risk factors involving the use of illicit substances as well as misuse of prescribed and

legal substances are not separated. The screening tool and process does not differenti-

ate between substances, therefore specic risk factors are not associated with different

substances.

Plans of safe care are monitored by the state health department. DCYF is only able to report

this data via comments. The RIDOH reports that for FFY 2022, 425 substance exposed

newborns were identied in KIDSNET. The RIDOH reports receiving 126 plans of safe care

for substance exposure.

Perpetrators

“Other perpetrator” would include any adult who does not have a relationship to the child

listed under the denition of “caretaker.” This would include noncaregiver perpetrators of sex

trafcking.

Rhode Island (continued)

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 269

Services

Case management is the responsibility of the DCYF caseworker. Most residential and

community-based services are outsourced.

Rhode Island (continued)

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 270

South Carolina

Contact Lynn Horne Phone 803–394–9737

Title CAPSS Business Analyst Email

[email protected]

Address Division of Technology Services

Department of Social Services

1628 Browning Road, Suite 100

Columbia, SC 29210

General

South Carolina only has one response to screened in reports which is to “Refer for

Investigation.”

Reports

South Carolina implemented a 24/7/365 intake hotline model in November 2021, so FFY

2022 was the rst full year of having a 24/7/365 centralized intake operation. Prior to this

time, each individual county was responsible for receiving on-call referrals outside of the

hours M-F 8:30a-5:00p.

The CPS workforce data are calculated using full-time equivalents (FTEs). Intake case

managers collect information, complete the SDM tool, and make a recommendation. The

intake supervisor reviews the information and makes a nal decision about the disposition of

the intake referral.

Children

The state has a policy to investigate/assess all children in a household if any child in the

household has a maltreatment allegation.

Fatalities

South Carolina Department of Social Services (SCDSS) has a Systems Transformation

Unit that tracks child fatalities internally and keeps data on child fatalities without SCDSS

involvement.

Law enforcement, the coroner, the medical examiner, and the Department of Health and

Environmental Control (Bureau of Vital Statistics Division) report all child deaths that were

not the result of natural causes, to the State Law Enforcement Division (SLED) for an inves-

tigation. SLED investigates all preventable child deaths and then refers their ndings to DSS,

where this unit reviews the agency’s response to these child fatalities.

The State Child Fatality Advisory Committee (SCFAC) also reviews a portion of cases

referred from SLED. As such, SCDSS’s comprehensive systems-level review, including

SCDSS’s records, records collected by SLED, and when available, records collected by

the SCFAC, form the Systems Transformation’s determination that the child fatality was

caused by maltreatment by a person responsible for the child’s welfare or maltreatment by

a person responsible for the child’s welfare contributed to the child fatality for the purposes

of reporting Agency File data. This list is compared to the agency’s SACWIS system and

children whose deaths have been reported in the Child File (indicated by SCDSS for death by

maltreatment) are removed.

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 271

Fatalities reported on the Agency File include but are not limited to fatalities not investigated

by SCDSS due to the perpetrating person responsible for the child’s welfare also being

deceased and indicated incidents of maltreatment causing a near- and eventual-fatality, but

due to time limits (60 days) on CPS investigations imposed by state statute and the fatality

itself occurring outside this timeframe, the case is not indicated for death by maltreatment in

SCDSS’s CCWIS system.

Perpetrators

Anyone in a “loco parentis” role can have a maltreatment nding and be labeled as a perpe-

trator. South Carolina includes noncaregivers as sex trafcking perpetrators. However, due to

the complexity of criminal cases related to human trafcking, nonparent or caregiver perpe-

trators of human trafcking are named as “Unknown” in our CCWIS system. This is because

if the perpetrator is engaged in a family court case because of the SCDSS involvement and

enters into an Alford Plea, the same plea can be applicable in a criminal trial and can impede

criminal charges and court procedures.

South Carolina (continued)

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 272

South Dakota

Contact JoLynn Bostrom Phone 605–347–2588 ext. 203

Title Program Specialist

Division of Child Protection Services

[email protected]

Address Department of Social Services

2200 W Main Street

Sturgis, SD 57785

General

Child Protection Services (CPS) does not utilize the Differential Response Model. CPS

either screens in reports, which are assigned as Initial Family Assessments, or the reports are

screened out. However, the Initial Family Assessment allows CPS to open a case for services

based on danger threats without substantiation of an incident of abuse or neglect. South

Dakota does refer reports to other agencies if the report does not meet the requirements for

assignment, and it appears the family could benet from the assistance of another agency.

South Dakota did not change any policies related to conducting investigations and assess-

ments due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The state was not on lockdown and Child Protection

Services continued to serve families throughout the pandemic. Child Protection staff were

considered and deemed as essential staff and were provided with necessary masks and

coverings to ensure their safety and the safety of the families requiring intervention. The

Child Protection intake hotline continued to operate with staff working in the ofce during

the pandemic. Visits that were previously conducted face-to-face were allowed to temporarily

be conducted virtually; however, this was dependent on case specic information.

Reports

CPS child abuse and neglect screening and response processes are based on allegations that

indicate the presence of danger threats, which includes the concern for child maltreatment.

CPS makes screening decisions using the Screening Guideline and Response Assessment.

Assignment is based on child safety and vulnerability. The response decision is related

to whether the information reported indicates present danger, impending danger, or any

other danger threat. A report is screened out if it does not meet the criteria in the Screening

Guideline and Response Assessment as described above.

The reporter types listed as “other” in the NCANDS Child File include clergy, community

person, coroner, domestic violence shelter employee or volunteer, funeral director, other state

agency, public ofcial and tribal ofcial.

Reports of abuse and neglect are categorized into ve types- neglect, physical abuse, sexual

abuse, sex trafcking, and/or emotional maltreatment. Medical neglect is included in the

neglect category.

Children

The data reported in the child le includes children who were victims of substantiated

reports of child abuse and neglect where the perpetrator is the parent, guardian or custodian.

Fatalities

Children who died due to substantiated child abuse and neglect by their parent, guardian or

custodian are reported as child fatalities. The number reported each year are those victims

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 273

involved in a report disposed during the report period, even if their date of death may have

actually been in the previous year. The State of South Dakota reports child fatalities in the

NCANDS Child File.

South Dakota Codied Law 26-8A-3 mandates which entities are required to report child

abuse and neglect.

“26-8A-3. Persons required to report child abuse or neglected child--Intentional failure as

misdemeanor. Any physician, dentist, doctor of osteopathy, chiropractor, optometrist, emer-

gency medical technician, paramedic, mental health professional or counselor, podiatrist,

psychologist, religious healing practitioner, social worker, hospital intern or resident, parole

or court services ofcer, law enforcement ofcer, teacher, school counselor, school ofcial,

nurse, licensed or registered child welfare provider, employee or volunteer of a domestic

abuse shelter, employee or volunteer of a child advocacy organization or child welfare service

provider, chemical dependency counselor, coroner, or any safety-sensitive position as dened

in § 3-6C-1, who has reasonable cause to suspect that a child under the age of eighteen has

been abused or neglected as dened in § 26-8A-2 shall report that information in accordance

with §§ 26-8A-6, 26-8A-7, and 26-8A-8. Any person who intentionally fails to make the

required report is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. Any person who knows or has reason to

suspect that a child has been abused or neglected as dened in § 26-8A-2 may report that

information as provided in § 26-8A-8.”

South Dakota Codied Law 26-8A-4 mandates that anyone who has reasonable cause to

suspect that a child has died as a result of child abuse or neglect must report. The reporting

process required by SDCL 26-8A-4 stipulates that the report must be made to the medical

examiner or coroner and in turn the medical examiner or coroner must report to the South

Dakota Department of Social Services.

“26-8A-4. Additional persons to report death resulting from abuse or neglect--Intentional

failure as misdemeanor. In addition to the report required under § 26-8A-3, any person who

has reasonable cause to suspect that a child has died as a result of child abuse or neglect as

dened in § 26-8A-2 shall report that information to the medical examiner or coroner. Upon

receipt of the report, the medical examiner or coroner shall cause an investigation to be made

and submit written ndings to the state’s attorney and the Department of Social Services.

Any person required to report under this section who knowingly and intentionally fails to

make a report is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.”

When CPS receives reports of child maltreatment deaths as required under SDCL 26-8A-4

from any source, CPS documents the report in FACIS (SACWIS). Reports that meet the

NCANDS data denition are reported to NCANDS.

The Justice for Children’s Committee (Children’s Justice Act Task Force) is also updated

annually on the handling of suspected child abuse and neglect related fatalities.

South Dakota (continued)

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 274

Perpetrators

Perpetrators are dened as individuals who abused or neglected a child and are the child’s

parent, guardian or custodian. The state information system designates one perpetrator per

child per allegation.

Services

The Agency File data includes services provided to children and families where funds were

used for primary prevention from the Community Based Family Resource and Support

Grant. This primarily involves individuals who received benet from parenting education

classes or parent aide services.

The State of South Dakota, Division of Child Protection Services with the consent of the

parent, refers every child under the age of 3 involved in a substantiated case of child abuse or

neglect to the Department of Education’s Birth to Three Connections program. This program

is responsible for the IDEA services. The parent or guardian is advised by the Division of

Child Protection Services that with their permission, a referral to Birth to Three Connections

will be made for a developmental screening of their child. The parent or guardian needs to

sign a DSS Information Authorization Form before the referral is made. The parent or guard-

ian is also given a Birth to Three Connections brochure and provided the name of the service

coordinator that will be contacting them to schedule the screening. The Birth to Three

Connections intake form is then completed and faxed with the Information Authorization to

the Birth to Three Connections coordinators to determine eligibility and write an Individual

Family Service Plan for eligible children within 45 days of the receipt of the referral. Not all

children referred by the Division of Child Protection Services to the Birth to Three program

are eligible for services.

South Dakota (continued)

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 275

Tennessee

Contact Neal Thompson Phone 615–253–1017

Title Business Intelligence Specialist-Intermediate

Strategic Technology Solutions

Finance and Administration

neal.thompson@tn.gov

Address Davy Crockett Tower 2nd Floor

500 James Robertson Parkway

Nashville, TN 37243

General

Tennessee has multiple pathways when screening referrals through CPS. The Multiple

Response System includes Investigations, Assessments (services approach) and Resource

Linkage. Investigations result in an administrative nding of substantiated/unsubstantiated

for allegations of abuse or neglect. Assessments result in a services nding on whether

services where not needed, recommended, required or court ordered to address the concerns

raised to the Department. Resource Linkage involves situations that do not rise to the level of

state denitions of abuse or neglect but where community or material services would prevent

the need for child welfare involvement. All of these tracks are embedded in the SACWIS/

CCWIS system and available to report to NCANDS..

Reports

The state made the following recent hires:

■ FFY 2021: Hotline Case Managers: 57, Hotline Supervisors: 21, Hotline Core Leadership:

5, Readers: 19

■ FFY 2022: Director: 1, Team Coordinators: 4, Team Leaders (all CAH): 9, Supervisory

Case Manager 3 and Trainers for CAH: 13, Reader Program Non-Supervisory Case

Manager 3 19, Case Managers (all CAH): 56

The screening process has not changed in Tennessee from the prior reporting year. Any

change in data would be a direct result in the continued reopening of Tennessee from the

recent pandemic.

Children

Tennessee includes non-familial trafckers as caregivers.

Fatalities

All child fatalities information recorded comes from data received and entered into the

system and are reported in the Child File. Not all infant/child deaths are investigated. DCS

must have jurisdiction due to a report/concern of child maltreatment or if the incident is

unexplained at the time of report, then we will accept the death for investigation. Through

that process, a determination is made whether the death was due to child maltreatment.

Perpetrators

The SACWIS denes almost 70 different ACV to perpetrator roles, where the most selected role is

“Alleged Perpetrator” which is mapped to the NCANDS value= 88 (other). The number reported in

this category has been reduced by more than 15 percent from FFY 2020.

Services

The state outsources some services.

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 276

Texas

Contact Kevin Chmiel Phone 512–289–4680

Title Data Manager V

Information and Technology

kevin.chmiel@dfps.texas.gov

Address Department of Family and Protective Services

4900 N Lamar Blvd

Austin, TX 78751

General

Alternative Response (AR) is an approach that responds differently than traditional investiga-

tions to reports of abuse/neglect. It allows for a more exible, family engaging approach while

still focusing on the safety of the children as much as in a traditional investigation. Alternative

Response allows screened-in reports of low to moderate risk to be diverted from a traditional

investigation and serviced through an alternative family centered assessment track. There will

be no change in the number or type of clients served but alternative response clients will be

served in a different manner. Generally, the Alternative Response track will serve accepted

child abuse and neglect cases that do not allege serious harm. AR cases will differ from tradi-

tional investigations cases in that there will be no substantiation of allegations, dispositions will

not be used, names of perpetrators will not be entered into the Central Registry (a repository for

conrmed reports of child abuse and neglect), and there will be a heightened focus on guiding

the family to plan for safety in a way that works for them and therefore sustains the safety.

Beginning in November 2014, Alternative Response was initially implemented in Regions 1,

3, and 11 to begin practicing AR and to develop experience and expertise. Implementation

was staggered to allow for planning and training. Regions 7 and 9 were implemented in 2015.

Regions 4, 5 and 10 were implemented in 2017. In 2018, Regions 2, 6b and 8 implemented

Alternative Response. Region 6A was implemented in 2021. At this time Alternative Response

has been fully implemented statewide.

Reports

All reports of maltreatment within DFPS’ jurisdiction are investigated, excluding those

which during the screening process are determined not to warrant an investigation based on

reliable collateral information.

The state considers the start of the investigation to be the point at which the case is assigned

to an investigative caseworker. In some instances, the caseworker will get a report about

a new incident of abuse or neglect involving a family who is already being investigated or

receiving services in an open DFPS case. There are also instances in which caseworkers

begin their investigation when families and children are brought to or walk-into an ofce

or 24-hour shelter. In both situations, the caseworker would then report the maltreatment

incident after the rst face-to-face contact initializing the investigation has been made. The

report date is the date the person calls into SWI. In the narrative they can specify when the

alleged abuse or neglect occur. The date the investigation starts can be 24-72 hours as set by

the priority time frames.

The state’s CPI schema regarding disposition hierarchy differs from NCANDS hierarchy.

The state has “other” and closed-no nding codes as superseding unsubstantiated at the

report level. Texas works on the principle that the two ends of the disposition spectrum are

founded and unfounded with all else in the middle. NCANDS takes a slightly different view

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 277

that the two sure points are founded and unfounded and everything else is less than either

of these two points. The state’s hierarchy for overall disposition is, from highest to lowest,

RTB-Reason to Believe, UTD-Unable to Determine, R/O-Ruled Out and UTC-Unable to

Complete. Mapping for NCANDS reporting is; RTB=01, UTD=88, UTC=07, and R/O=05.

An inconsistency in the hierarchies for the state and for NCANDS occurs in investigations

where an alleged victim has multiple maltreatment allegations and one has a disposition of

UTD while the other has a maltreatment disposition of R/O. According to the state’s hierar-

chy, the overall disposition for these investigations is UTD. Mapping the report disposition to

unsubstantiated as indicated in the NCANDS’s Report Disposition Hierarchy report would be

inconsistent with state policy.

There is no CPI program requirement or state requirement to capture incident date so there is

no data eld in the SACWIS system for this information. Historical problem: the date when

an abuse/neglect incident happened does not conform to only one date when abuse/neglect is

ongoing. Therefore, identifying one date would be inaccurate.

Children

The State does not make a distinction between substantiated and indicated victims.

A child has the role of “designated victim” when he or she is named as a victim in an allega-

tion that has a disposition of “reason to believe”.

A child (age 10 or older) has the role of “designated perpetrator” when he or she is named as

a perpetrator in an allegation that has a disposition of “reason to believe.”

A child (age 10 or older) has the role of “designated both” (i.e., designated victim and des-

ignated perpetrator in the same case) when he or she is named as a victim in an allegation

that has a disposition of “reason to believe” and as a perpetrator in an allegation that has a

disposition of “reason to believe.”

A person (child or adult) has the role of “unknown (unable to determine)” when he or she is

named in an allegation that has a disposition of “unable to determine” but is not named in

another allegation that has a disposition of “reason to believe”.

A person (child or adult) has the role of “unknown (unable to complete)” when he or she is

named in an allegation that has a disposition of “unable to complete” but is not named in

another allegation that has a disposition of “reason to believe” or “unable to determine”.

A person (child or adult) has the role of “not involved” when: all the allegations in which the

person is named have a disposition of “ruled out”, the overall disposition for the investigation

is “administrative closure”, or the person was not named in an allegation as a perpetrator or

victim.

The State can provide data for living arrangement at the time of the alleged incident of

maltreatment only for children investigated while in a substitute care living situation. All

others are reported as unknown.

Texas (continued)

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 278

Since FFY 2017, Texas implemented the breakout of Sex Trafcking from the Sexual Abuse

maltreatment type and Labor Trafcking from other maltreatment types Specically for human

trafcking, DFPS investigates if a person traditionally responsible for the children’s care,

custody, and welfare does either of the following:

■ Knowingly causes, permits, encourages, engages in, or allows a child to be trafcked, or

■ Fails to make a reasonable effort to prevent a child from being trafcked

Fatalities

Child fatalities decreased during FFY 2022 by fteen percent.

The source of information used for reporting child maltreatment fatalities is the reason for

death eld contained in the DFPS IMPACT system plus a child fatality investigation with a

reason to believe – fatal nding for an allegation.

DFPS uses information from the State’s vital statistics department, child death review teams,

law enforcement agencies and medical examiners’ ofces when reporting child maltreatment

fatality data to NCANDS. DFPS is the agency required by law to investigate and report on

child maltreatment fatalities in Texas when the perpetrator is a person responsible for the care

of the child. Information from the other agencies/entities listed above is often used to make

reports to DFPS that initiate an investigation into suspected abuse or neglect that may have

led to a child fatality. Also, DFPS uses information gathered by law enforcement and medical

examiners’ ofces to reach dispositions in the child fatalities investigated by DFPS. Other

agencies, however, have different criteria for assessing and evaluating causes of death that may

not be consistent with the child abuse/neglect denitions in the Texas Family Code and/or may

not be interpreted or applied in the same manner as within DFPS.

There were no changes to child fatality reviews during FFY 2022. It is important to note that

starting September 1, 2021, Texas Family Code, Section 261.001 provided an updated denition

for neglect that requires both the presence of blatant disregard as well as either a resulting harm

or an immediate danger: “an act or failure to act by a person responsible for a child’s care,

custody, or welfare evidencing the person’s blatant disregard for the consequences of the act or

failure to act that results in harm to the child or that creates an immediate danger to the child’s

physical health or safety…”

Child fatalities decreased in FFY 2022. This includes signicant decreases in unsafe sleep,

drownings, and vehicle-related fatalities.

Perpetrators

Relationships reported for individuals are based on the person’s relationship to the oldest

alleged victim in the investigation. The State is unable to report the perpetrator’s relationship

to each individual alleged victim, but rather reports data as the perpetrator relates to the oldest

alleged victim. Currently the State’s relationship code for foster parents does not distinguish

between relative/non relative.

The state only reports on human trafcking perpetrators who meet the Texas Family Code §

261.001(5)(A)-(D) denition of a person responsible for a child’s care, custody, and welfare.

Texas (continued)

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 279

Services

In FFY 20 DFPS made changes to the policy handbook to align with Federal Plans of Safe Care

guidance. Staff work with the hospitals to ensure that a Plan of Safe Care has been initiated for

families in cases involving prenatal substance exposure. Child Protective Investigation (CPI)

and Child Protective Services (CPS) staff work to ensure that any plans developed for a family

are individualized to address the family’s particular strengths and needs and to ensure that

any appropriate referrals are made. DFPS continues to work with both the local and state level

with appropriate community stakeholders and partner agencies to develop consistent guidance

around Plans of Safe Care.

Texas (continued)

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 280

Utah

Contact Jennifer Larson Phone 801–538–4100

Title Electronic Business Project Manager/CCWIS Director Email

[email protected]

Address Division of Child and Family Services

195 N 1950 W

Salt Lake City, UT 84116

General

Utah continues to invest in its child welfare programs, both through improved training for

caseworkers and updating the technology that enables those workers. Utah continues to

navigate COVID and the impact on children, families, mandatory reports, and the workforce.

Utah has seen the high caseworker turnover and addressing the impact in training and

mentoring. Overall workforce support is Utah’s top priority.

Utah does not have an alternative response/differential response. All reports are either

screened out or screened in as a referral for a CPS Assessment.

Reports

The investigation start date is dened as the date a child is rst seen by CPS. The data is

captured in date, hours, and minutes. A referral is screened out in situations including, but

not limited to:

■ The minimum required information for accepting a referral is not available.

■ As a result of research, the information is found not credible or reliable.

■ The specic incidence or allegation has been previously investigated and no new informa-

tion is gathered.

■ If all the information provided by the referent were found to be true and the case nding

would still be unsupported.

■ The specic allegation is under investigation and no new information is gathered.

The state uses the following ndings:

■ Supported–a nding, based on the information available to the worker at the end of the

investigation, that there is a reasonable basis to conclude that abuse, neglect, or depen-

dency occurred, and that the identied perpetrator is responsible.

■ Unsupported–a nding based on the information available to the worker at the end of

the investigation that there was insufcient information to conclude that abuse, neglect,

or dependency occurred. A nding of unsupported means that the worker was unable to

make a positive determination that the allegation was actually without merit.

■ Without merit–an afrmative nding at the completion of the investigation that the alleged

abuse, neglect, or dependency did not occur, or that the alleged perpetrator was not

responsible.

■ Unable to locate–a category indicating that even though the child and family services

child protective services worker has followed the steps outlined in child and family

services practice guideline and has made reasonable efforts, the child and family services

child protective services worker has been unable to make face-to-face contact with the

alleged victims to investigate an allegation of abuse, neglect, or dependency and to make a

determination of whether the allegation should be classied as supported, non-supported,

or without merit.

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 281

Children

Utah’s predominant allegation continues to be neglect. When combined with a family’s risk

factors, neglect is often the result of substance misuse. Utah continues to investigate out-of-

home perpetrators which results in higher than the national average of sexual abuse cases.

Utah has a process which defers pregnant women who are identied as substance using to the

Ofce of Substance Abuse and Mental Health for treatment and services as a preventative

measure to DCFS involvement.

Fatalities

Concerns related to child maltreatment, including fatalities, are required to be reported to the

Utah DCFS. Fatalities where the CPS investigation determined the abuse was due to abuse

or neglect are reported in the NCANDS Child File. No changes to the fatality review process

were made in FFY 2022.

Perpetrators

The only restriction Utah places upon identifying perpetrators is that CPS will not open

a case for sexual abuse where the perpetrator is under the age of 12, except in extreme

circumstances. This change was a result from HB262 during the 2020 session of the Utah

legislature. Utah does report noncaregiver perpetrators of sex trafcking.

Services

There has been no changes to Utah’s prevention funding. Utah continues to explore other pre-

vention services as related to Family First Prevention Services Act (FFPSA). Utah does not

outsource case management responsibilities, but does outsource services where appropriate.

Utah (continued)

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 282

Vermont

Contact Melissa Burt Phone 802–241–0879

Title Quality Assurance Coordinator

Vermont Family Services Division

[email protected]

Address Vermont Department for Children and Families

280 State Dr HC1 North Bldg B

Waterbury, VT 05671

General

Over the past 10 years, about 35 percent of cases are assigned to the assessment track. In the

assessment track, the disposition options are services needed and no services needed. Cases

assigned to the assessment track may be switched to the investigation track, but not vice

versa. Data from both tracks are reported to NCANDS. Vermont’s Family Services Division

(FSD) is responsible for responding to allegations of child abuse and neglect by parents or

“persons responsible for the child’s welfare”, and sexual abuse by any person (including out-

of-home perpetrators). In addition to conducting our statutory child abuse investigations and

assessments, we also have an option to conduct family assessments under the authority of 33

V.S.A.§ 5106. These family assessments do not meet statutory requirements for abuse and

neglect but provide an option to engage with families where there are concerns. The focus of

the assessment is on whether a child may be in need of care or supervision and are referred

to as CHINS assessments. Because these family assessments are not part of our abuse and

neglect statute, they are not reected in this dataset. However, it is important to acknowledge

that on an annual basis we conduct approximately 1,000 family assessments.

Reports

Vermont operates a statewide child protection hotline, available 24/7. All intakes are handled

by family services workers and screening decisions are handled by hotline supervisors. These

same supervisors make the initial track assignment decision. Vermont’s CPS workforce data

is calculated using full-time equivalents and has experienced some uctuation in capacity

since the COVID-19 pandemic. Some of the changes seen can be attributed to the reduction

in the workforce itself, seen nationwide, as well as a reduction in the number of accepted

child safety interventions since the pandemic. Vermont is beginning to see an increase in the

number of reports made to the child protection hotline, approaching pre-pandemic volumes,

and feels that this may be attributed to society’s acceptance of the virus, and continued

efforts to gain normalcy in a post-pandemic environment. Additionally, it should be noted

that some of the increase seen in Vermont’s FFY 2022 reporting period is a result of the IT

Developer adjusting the coding to include 11 additional types of sexual abuse tracked within

the database, including incest, rape, sodomy, lewd and lascivious, aiding child pornography,

viewing child pornography, voyeurism, luring, obscenity and sexual assault.

All calls to the child abuse hotline are counted as referrals, resulting in a very high rate of

referrals per 1,000 children, and making it appear that Vermont has a very low screen-in

rate. Although Vermont has not conducted a thorough analysis, some of the contributing

factors leading to our increasing number of referrals include, but are not limited to, reports

where child abuse/neglect are not present and issues include truancy, delinquent behavior,

mental health crises, out-of-home sexual abuse reports including teen sexting with or without

consent, teen sexual harassment, as well as family conguration and our practice of entering

reports under the primary caretaker when there are multiple children involved. This often

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 283

results in multiple reports for the same incident. In situations where multiple reports are

made for the same incident, it is Vermont’s practice to screen in only one of those reports.

Vermont continues to utilize the SDM Safety Assessment and Risk Assessment tools in our

child safety interventions. In 2022, we added language into the Safety Assessment to better

capture human trafcking as a danger item and we shifted our practice to truly give families

a choice in whether they engage in prevention-based services with the Division.

Children

The Family Services Division is responsible for investigating allegations of child abuse or

neglect by caregivers and sexual abuse by any person. The Division investigates risk of

physical harm and risk of sexual abuse. Statute allows the Division to identify other children

living in the same home as the identied child victim, and states that the investigator shall

consider the physical and emotional condition of those children and may interview them,

unless the child is the person who is alleged to be responsible for such abuse or neglect.

Unless unreasonable within the context of the child safety intervention, division policy

requires staff to evaluate the safety of any other children living in the same home. The evalu-

ation should include an interview or observation of the other child(ren) and occurs with the

permission of the child’s parent, guardian or custodian.

Vermont faces a few challenges regarding collecting and reporting data to NCANDS for

some data elements, including child and caregiver risk factors, and infants with prenatal

substance exposure. We will continue to have limitations until the state can successfully

implement a new CCWIS system. Until that time we continue to make system enhancements

to our legacy system when IT resources are available. This work needs to be prioritized

against other department wide initiates, resulting in a substantial lag time for the work to

be complete. As an example of a system limitation regarding prenatal substance exposure,

when child protection services (CPS) or Family Services (FSD) are not involved, meaning

the child does not meet the criteria for making a report to the child abuse and neglect hotline,

we are currently relying on hospital staff to remember to fax a notication to us at FSD.

This information is then tracked in an Excel spreadsheet. Vermont has considered making

enhancements to the state’s database where our centralized intake data lives to better track

this data; however, the state continues to lack IT resources to move this work forward.

Another option that has been considered for this tracking is an external web-based portal that

could be utilized by all hospitals in the state and reported to FSD. Vermont participated in

the 2023 Policy Academy: Advancing Collaborative Practice and Policy: Promoting Healthy

Development and Family Recovery for Infants, Children, Parents, and Caregivers Affected

by Prenatal Substance Exposure, and we have since applied for and been accepted to receive

In Depth Technical Assistance (IDTA) from Children and Family Futures, which is now

underway. Through this collaborative process, we will continue to revisit our approach to

supporting families affected by substance use disorders and substance-exposed newborns.

Related to data collection, one of our goals within this work is to improve data collection as

a strategy to apply quality improvement methods in clinical and community care towards the

goal of increased care coordination a systems integration, including:

1. Understand number of infants born affected by substance use who needed a POSC

2. Explore development of portal to collect notication data

3. Expand use of CAPTA ow sheet in electronic health records (EHRs) across the state

Vermont (continued)

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 284

4. Subgroup (PLSB Workgroup) continue to meet to address data concerns

5. Determine where redcap database/portal data will live

6. Implement data collection measures as possible within CHARM teams

When CPS/FSD are involved due to safety issues, our current antiquated data system has

many limitations and we currently are not able to capture all cases that would fall into this

category, therefore we are under-reporting. Vermont did not change any polices or proce-

dures regarding reporting or tracking of infants with prenatal substance exposure during the

pandemic.

One system enhancement that Vermont was able to successfully implement was having sex

trafcking report as its own maltreatment type. Vermont has been collecting this data for

years, however, with reduced IT resources and the need for the work to be prioritized, FFY

2022 submission is the rst reporting period that includes the updated mapping. Sex trafck-

ing as a maltreatment type is captured as such for the entire FFY.

Fatalities

DCF FSD is part of Vermont’s Child Fatality Review Team (CFRT), which is housed under

the Vermont Department of Health (VDH). This team reviews all unnatural child fatalities

and provides annual data to the legislature, striving to make recommendations related to

themes which arise.

DCF FSD is a member of the National Partnership for Child Safety, which is now a 26-juris-

diction collaborative with support from Casey Family Programs. As part of our collaboration

with NPCS, Vermont is in the process of developing the Safe System Learning Review

(SSLR); a child death review process which utilizes the Safe Systems Improvement Tool

(SSIT) and seeks to create a psychologically safe process for staff as well as one that pro-

motes system wide improvement over individually based fault nding.

Perpetrators

Division policy denes a perpetrator as an individual of any age who is determined to

have committed child abuse or neglect. Perpetrators of sexual abuse include non-caregiver

perpetrators of any age. Perpetrators of all other types of abuse must be a person responsible

for the child’s welfare (includes the child’s parent; guardian; foster parent; any other adult

residing in the child’s home who serves in a parental role; an employee of a public or private

residential home, institution or agency; or other person responsible for the child’s welfare

while in a residential, educational, or child care setting, including any staff person (33 V.S.A.

§ 4912(10)). Young people may be identied as a perpetrator of sexual abuse on another youth

as young as age 6 (referred to as alleged actor youth); however, according to our differential

response track assignment, those allegations would be assigned as an assessment up until age

14, at which point the case would be assigned as an investigation. Perpetrators that fall into

the “other” relationship category for the purposes of NCANDS reporting include stepparent,

foster sibling, and grandparent. In addition, any perpetrator that is captured using the stand-

alone code of OO (other relationship) within the database will fall into this category. Vermont

does report non-caregiver perpetrators of sex trafcking to NCANDS.

Vermont (continued)

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 285

Services

Within the last year, as mentioned earlier, Vermont undertook practice changes related to our

use of the SDM Risk Assessment and determination of service need to truly give families

a choice in whether they engage in prevention-based services with the division. Following

an investigation or assessment, a validated risk assessment tool is applied. If the family is

classied as at high- or very-high-risk for future child maltreatment, the family is offered

in-home services, and may be referred to other community services designed to address risk

factors and build protective capacities. State statute dictates that families have the option of

declining services offered as a result of the division’s assessment. Prior to case closure, staff

should be assisting the family in making referrals and connections to community providers,

and having a conversation with the family about why they are declining services and how

they plan to partner with family, friends, and/or services providers in their local community

to mitigate the risks. We’ve referred to these conversations or meetings as “Safe Closure

Meetings”, where we support families in developing their own plan.

Vermont chose two evidence-based practices to implement in year 1 of our 5-Year Prevention

Plan. We decided to start with a small number of EBPs in the rst year to support a success-

ful implementation and reliable CQI processes. Each of these practices have at least a small

foothold in Vermont. Because these practices are already known and have been adopted as

benecial interventions by our greater system, there was a lot of support from our stakehold-

ers for these practices. Additionally, these practices have high efcacy ratings, which also

enhanced support for them. Vermont’s two selected EBPs are Motivational Interviewing (MI)

and Child Parent Interactive Therapy (PCIT). Specic to MI, contracts have been amended

for Intensive Family Based Services (IFBS) and Balanced and Restorative Justice (BARJ).

We are partnering closely with the Department of Mental Health (DMH) regarding PCIT.

We are planning to begin by providing preventive services to candidates involved with the

division through open Family Support Cases and Conditional Custody Orders (CCOs). Over

time, our vision is to collaborate with and support our key community stakeholders so that

in the future, the funding would follow the child/youth/family regardless of the division’s

involvement or case status. This will mean that their needs can be met without ever having to

enter the child welfare system. We also recognize the need to expand our array of prevention-

based services over time.

Vermont (continued)

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 286

Virginia

Contact Shannon Hartung Phone 804–629–7125

Title Protection Program Manager

Division of Family Services

[email protected]

Address Virginia Department of Social Services

801 East Main Street, 11th Floor

Richmond, VA 23219

General

There were not any substantial changes to the Code of Virginia in 2022. Section 63.2-1504 of

the Code of Virginia provides Virginia with a differential response system. The differential

response system allows local departments to respond to valid reports or complaints of child

abuse or neglect by conducting either an investigation or a family assessment. Virginia reports

data from both pathways to NCANDS.

The Virginia Administrative Code 22VAC40-705-10 denes Family assessment as the collec-

tion of information necessary to determine:

1. The immediate safety needs of the child;

2. The protective and rehabilitative services needs of the child and family that will deter abuse

or neglect;

3. Risk of future harm to the child; and

4. Alternative plans for the child’s safety if protective and rehabilitative services are indicated

and the family is unable or unwilling to participate in services. These arrangements may be

made in consultation with the caretaker of the child.

The Virginia Administrative Code 22VAC40-705-10 denes “Investigation” as the collection of

information to determine:

1. The immediate safety needs of the child;

2. The protective and rehabilitative services needs of the child and family that will deter abuse

or neglect;

3. Risk of future harm to the child;

4. Alternative plans for the child’s safety if protective and rehabilitative services are indicated

and the family is unable or unwilling to participate in services;

5. Whether or not abuse or neglect has occurred;

6. If abuse or neglect has occurred, who abused or neglected the child; and

7. A nding of either founded or unfounded based on the facts collected during the

investigation.

Reports

CPS referrals increased from FFY 2021 to FFY 2022. However, the rate of referrals being

accepted decreased over this same period. Additionally, the rate of Family Assessments being

completed over investigations remained consistent with FFY 2021. The increase in referrals is

likely due to the end of COVID-19 restrictions and a statewide return to in-person learning for

students in public school settings.

As a state supervised locally administered system, referral validity is determined by the local

department of jurisdiction. Local departments assess the validity criteria of age, caretaker,

and jurisdiction and are required to use the Structured Decision Making (SDM) Intake Tool to

determine if the allegations meet a denition of abuse or neglect. The SDM Intake Tool is also

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 287

used to determine the referral track (family assessment or investigation) and response priority

(R1, R2, or R3). The SDM Intake Tool used by Virginia was revised in August 2020.

Children

Child victims increased slightly from FFY 2021 to FFY 2022. Virginia does not include all

children in the household as victims. To be identied as a victim, the child must be directly

associated with a maltreatment allegation.

Virginia captures alcohol and drug child risk factors; however, when both risk factors are

indicated the system only reports one risk factor. There have been no changes in the methodolo-

gies of our reporting from FFY 2021 to FFY 2022 for sex trafcking victims and infants with

prenatal substance exposure.

Fatalities

Virginia investigated less child fatalities in FFY 2022. The number of unique child fatalities

decreased from FFY 2021 to FFY 2022, likely due to the high number of child fatalities involv-

ing unsafe sleep environments that are often unsubstantiated. Virginia does not collect child

fatality data from external agencies. Virginia only investigates infant and child deaths when

there is a child maltreatment allegation.

Virginia did not make any policy related changes to the child fatality review process; however,

we signicantly revised our guidance around the investigation of child deaths. Virginia con-

tinues to prepare an annual report on child deaths investigated for abuse or neglect across the

Commonwealth.

Perpetrators

The number of perpetrators decreased. In Virginia, any individual who is in a caretaking role of

a child can be identied as a perpetrator of abuse or neglect, this includes individuals under the

age of eighteen. Consideration is given to the amount of authority delegated to the individual

for the care, control, and discipline of the child. Virginia reports non caretaker perpetrators of

sex trafcking to NCANDS.

Section 63.2-1509 of the Code of Virginia says:

B. A valid report or complaint regarding a child who has been identied as a victim

of sex trafcking or severe forms of trafcking as dened in the federal Trafcking

Victims Protection Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C § 7102 et seq.) and in the federal Justice

for Victims of Trafcking Act of 2015 (P.L. 114-22) may be established if the alleged

abuser is the alleged victim child’s parent, other caretaker, or any other person

suspected to have caused such abuse or neglect.

Services

Virginia implemented Family First on July 1, 2021. This implementation included the alignment

of Prevention, CPS Ongoing, and Family First to create In-Home Services, and the utilization

of IV-E Prevention Services funding for evidence-based programs (EBPs). Virginia began with

three EBPs – Multisystemic Therapy (MST), Functional Family Therapy (FFT), and Parent-

Child Interaction Therapy (PCIT). LDSS began utilizing IV-E Prevention Services funding in

the rst few months of implementation. As so December 1, 2021, all three of these EBPs were

Virginia (continued)

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 288

also Medicaid eligible, resulting in a decrease in IV-E spending. The Center for Evidence-

based Partnerships in Virginia (CEP-Va) completed and submitted a Needs Assessment and

Gaps Analysis (NAGA) report to VDSS in October 2021, which included the recommendation

for the addition of EBPs in Virginia’s Prevention Plan. Virginia is in the process of getting

approval for ve additional EBPs – Brief Strategic Family Therapy (BSFT), Family Check-Up,

Homebuilders (HB), Motivational Interviewing (MI), and High Fidelity Wraparound (HFW).

None of these EBPs are currently covered under Virginia Medicaid, so the expectation is that

IV-E utilization will increase during FFY 2024.

Virginia has utilized Transition Act funds to expand the availability of EBPs across the state.

Despite the availability of funds, due to the mental healthcare workforce stafng crisis the

ability of providers to bring new EBPs (or sustain current EBPs) has been a major challenge to

expansion efforts. CEP-Va began a second round of NAGA in the spring of 2022 which takes

this into consideration. Their report and recommendations will be submitted to VDSS in early

2023.

The 2022 Special Session of the Virginia General Assembly authorized a change in funding

source for the Relative Maintenance Support Payments for eligible relatives and ctive kin

from Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) federal block funds to 100 percent

state general funds. The Relative Maintenance Support Payment aligns with the Virginia

Department of Social Services (VDSS) Kin-First culture and is a state supported approach to

providing needed nancial assistance and promotes concerted efforts that honors and maintains

family connections. This appropriation of general funds presented VDSS with the opportunity

to provide support payments for children who do not meet the TANF child-only require-

ments and are being cared for by ctive kin to avoid placement into foster care. This support

payment was incorporated into the Virginia Case Management System (VaCMS) to manage

and disperse payments with payments to eligible relative and ctive kin caregivers begin-

ning December 19, 2022. In SFY 2022, 652 families received Relative Maintenance Support

Payments.

Virginia continues to value and support usage of PSSF funds for preventive services. There has

been a targeted focus on the technical assistance provided to local agencies to increase the use

of PSSF funds to ensure children and families receive appropriate and necessary wrap-around

services and/ or that PSSF funds be used to complement other funding streams to ensure

there are no gaps in services when working with families. Another targeted focus has been to

increase the use of PSSF funds to provide supportive services to relatives and ctive kin caring

for children as a result of CPS involvement to reduce the risk of entry or re-entry into foster

care.

For SFY 2022, in comparison to SFY2021, there was a 38 percent increase in the use of Family

Support funds, a 55 percent increase in the use of Family Preservation funds, 49 percent

increase in the use of Family Reunication funds and a 282 percent increase in the use of

Monthly Caseworker Visits funds. In the same year, 898 relatives received supportive services

through PSSF funds. The primary services being housing/ material assistance, case manage-

ment, information and referrals, parent-family resource center, assessments, transportation,

parenting education and counseling services.

Virginia (continued)

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 289

Virginia accessed and used PSSF COVID funds. All COVID funds were exhausted and used

to provide supportive services to 1,676 families, 2,636 children and 209 relatives. The primary

services being housing/ material assistance, transportation, parent education, assessments,

educational supports, home based services, and childcare.

Virginia (continued)

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 290

Washington

Contact Lisa Barber Phone 360–407–1461

Title Report Design/Development

Ofce of Innovation, Alignment, and Accountability

[email protected]

Address WA State Department of Children, Youth, and Families

1500 Jefferson Street

Olympia, WA 98504

General

A Structured Decision Making (SDM) intake screening tool supports a two pathway response

for CPS response when there were allegations of child abuse and neglect (CA/N) and clear

denitions for CPS risk-only intakes.

CPS risk-only intakes involve a child whose circumstances places him or her at imminent

risk of serious harm without any specic allegations of abuse or neglect. When CPS risk-only

intakes are screened in, children must be seen by a CPS investigator within 24 hours and a

complete investigation is required. If child abuse or neglect is found during the response to a

CPS risk-only intake, a new CPS intake is created regarding the allegation, the case worker

records the ndings and the record is included in the NCANDS Child File. CPS risk-only

intakes were not historically submitted to NCANDS because of no substantiation of mal-

treatment. However, because CPS Risk-Only intakes receive a full investigation it has been

requested that they be included to provide an accurate reection of the number of CPS cases

being investigated and assessed. CPS Risk-Only intakes are now included as of the FFY 2019

report. Historical counts of CPS Risk-Only intakes were provided in each year’s commentary.

Washington’s Children’s Administration (CA) uses a two pathway response for CPS intakes:

investigation which requires a 24- or 72-hour response time, and FAR, requiring a 72-hour

response. Intakes screened to FAR predominately contain allegations for physical abuse and

neglect that were and still are considered low risk, not requiring an immediate response.

The SDM provides consistency in screening, and it guides intakes with neglect allegations

considered low risk to the FAR pathway. Intakes involving cases that have had three or more

screened in CPS intakes within the last 12 months or allegations of moderate to severe physical

abuse and all sexual abuse allegations are screened to the investigation pathway. Intakes with

any allegations of physical abuse for children under age 4, with a dependency within the last 12

months or an active dependency are screened to investigation. This two pathway response has

been phased-in across the state as of June 2017.

Reports

To be screened-in for CPS intervention, intakes must meet sufciency. Washington’s suf-

ciency screening consists of three criteria:

■ Allegations must meet the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) for child abuse and

neglect.

■ The alleged victim of child abuse and neglect must be younger than 18 years.

■ The alleged subject of child abuse or neglect has a role of parent, acting in loco parentis, or

unknown.

Intakes that do not meet all three of the above criteria do not screen in for a CPS response,

unless there is imminent risk of harm (CPS risk-only) to the child. Intakes that allege a crime

has been committed but do not meet Washington’s screening criteria are referred to the law

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 291

enforcement jurisdiction where the alleged crime occurred. CPS Risk Only intakes receive an

Investigation with a 24 or 72-hour response, when protective factors are in place mitigating the

imminent risk of harm to the child for the 72 hours following the intake (e.g. hospitalization).

Intakes screened to the FAR pathway do not receive a CPS nding. Additionally, FAR intakes

are mapped as alternative response non-victim in NCANDS and don’t receive ndings on alle-

gations. In FFY 2015, there was a signicant increase in intakes screened to the FAR pathway

from FFY 2014, thus eliminating a large pool of victims receiving a nding. The increase in

the number of intakes screened to the FAR pathway in FFY 2015 is a result of the staggered

implementation of the FAR pathway across the state. In FFY 2016 there was a similar increase

in intakes screened to the FAR pathway from FFY 2015 as a result of additional ofces imple-

menting FAR and due to additional training and consultation on the SDM intake screening tool

and FAR pathway. Prior to full implementation of FAR, for ofces that had not launched FAR,

intakes screened to FAR through the use of the SDM were diverted back to an investigation

pathway, allowed under the Washington state statute. Since the full implementation of FAR

statewide, the number of intakes screened to the FAR pathway have continued to increase

which resulted in a reduction of cases that involved a victim and subject.

During FFYs 2014–2016 there was a signicant increase noted for 24-hour emergent intakes,

both with allegations of CA/N and CPS risk only. Also during FFYs 2014–2015, there was

an enhanced focus on child safety related to children age 0–3. A new intake policy was

implemented requiring that screened-in physical abuse intakes regarding children 0–3 would

be investigated, and children would be seen within 24 hours. In FFY 2017 there was again an

increase in CPS Risk Only and 24-hour emergent intakes.

The Licensing Division (LD), formally known as the Department of Licensed Resources

(DLR), complete DLR-CPS risk-only intakes alleging, abuse or neglect of 18–21 year olds in

facilities licensed or certied to care for children require a complete investigation. If, during

the course of the investigation, it is determined that a child younger than 18 was also alleg-

edly abused by the same perpetrator, the investigation would then meet the criteria for a CPS

investigation rather than a CPS risk-only investigation. A victim and ndings will be recorded,

and the record will be included in the NCANDS Child File. For intakes containing child abuse

and neglect allegations, response times of 24 hours or 72 hours are determined based on the

sufciency screen and the SDM intake screening tool.

Children

An alleged victim is reported as substantiated if any of the alleged child abuse or neglect was

founded. The alleged victim is reported as unsubstantiated if all alleged child abuse or neglect

identied was unfounded. The NCANDS category of “other” disposition previously included

the number of children in inconclusive investigations. Legislative changes resulted in inconclu-

sive no longer being a ndings category. The NCANDS category of neglect includes medical

neglect.

Fatalities

The state includes child fatalities that were determined to be the result of abuse or neglect by

a medical examiner or coroner or if there was a CPS nding of abuse or neglect. The state

previously counted only those child fatalities where the medical examiner or coroner ruled

Washington (continued)

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 292

the manner of death was a homicide. Washington only reports fatalities in the Agency File.

Information about fatalities is also requested from the County Coroner’s/Medical Examiner’s

Ofces, Law Enforcement departments, and the Washington State Department of Health,

which maintains vital statistics data, including child deaths.

Children’s Administration (CA), now Dept of Children, Youth and Families (DCYF), began

maintaining a separate database of child fatality data (AIRS) in 2002. At that time the CAMIS

system used before the SACWIS system was implemented. CAMIS did not support a database

of child fatality and other critical incident information. In February 2009, CA released a new

SACWIS system (FamLink). The objective was to have all child fatality and other critical

incident information stored in FamLink and the reporting of all critical incidents would be done

through FamLink. However, this plan was cancelled due to budgetary considerations. FamLink

does identify child fatalities and other critical incidents, but it does not include the level of

detail necessary to determine whether the fatality was the result of abuse and neglect. This

information continues to be maintained in the AIRS database and reported in the Agency File.

Washington has seen a signicant increase in the numbers of fentanyl and opioid related

fatalities. In the FFY21 data, fentanyl and opioid overdose/ingestion deaths accounted for

.08% of the child fatalities that year. In FFY 2022, fentanyl and opioid overdose/ingestion

deaths accounted for 23 percent of the child fatalities. In 2021, 28 percent of the fatality and

near fatalities that qualied for a review were the result of fentanyl and opioid overdose/inges-

tion. In 2022, 44 percent of the fatality and near fatalities that qualied for a review were the

result of fentanyl and opioid overdose/ingestion. These are signicant increases from previous

years. Note: per state law, DCYF is required to conduct child fatality and near fatality reviews

when the child’s death or near fatal injury is the result of abuse or neglect and the department

provided services to the child within 12 months of the fatal or near fatal injury. In FFY 2022,

DCYF had no prior contact, or no recent contact, with the families in 55 percent of the child

fatalities. This is also reected in the cases that qualify for fatality and near fatality reviews.

Perpetrators

The perpetrator relationship value of residential facility provider/staff is currently mapped to

the NCANDS category of “other” perpetrator relationship. The NCANDS category of “other”

perpetrator relationship includes the state categories of other and babysitter.

The parental type relationship is a combined parent birth/adoptive value. Because the

NCANDS eld separates biological and adoptive parent and Washington’s system does not

distinguish between the two, parent birth/adoptive is mapped to the NCANDS category of

unknown parent relationship.

Washington does not report noncaregiver perpetrators of sex trafcking. These are screened out

as a third party report to law enforcement.

Services

Families receive preventive and remedial services from the following sources: community-

based services such as public health nurses, infant mental health, early intervention, Head Start

and other early learning programs, the Parent-Child Assistance Program, and referrals for

mental health, domestic violence, and/or substance use disorder treatment. Contracted services,

Washington (continued)

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 293

including several evidence-based practices such as Homebuilders, Incredible Years, Safe Care,

Triple P, Parent-Child Interaction Therapy, and Promoting First Relationships. Families can also

receive CPS childcare, family reconciliation services, family preservation, and intensive family

preservation services. The number of recipients of the community-based family resource and

support grant is obtained from community-based child abuse prevention (CBCAP). Service

provision has been negatively impacted by the pandemic with many service providers under-

staffed and/or unable to see families in-person. Some service providers have successfully

transitioned to virtual delivery of services.

Washington (continued)

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 294

West Virginia

Contact Stephanie Lindley Phone 304–558–5864

Title Program Manager Email

stephanie.l.lindley@wv.gov

Address Ofce of Management Information Systems

WV Department of Health and Human Resources

One Davis Square, Suite 200

Charleston, WV 25301

General

West Virginia currently has only one response, accepted for assessment.

Report

The number of referrals in FFY 2022 was very similar to FFY 2021. The Hotline continued

to operate 24/7. Stafng level was impacted by resignations and vacancies. Due to continu-

ous staff turnover, WV is always hiring and training new staff. The CPS workforce data is

calculated using full-time equivalents (FTEs). During screening, a supervisor will review all

the information in the report to determine whether there is reasonable cause to suspect a child

is abused or neglected. The supervisor will use the legal and operational denitions to make the

decision. CPS must accept for assessment any report which suggests that an individual between

birth and eighteen years of age may have been subject to treatment which meets the denition

of abuse or neglect in WV Code and CPS Policy. Once accepted, the intake is transferred to the

district for assignment to a CPS worker. Intakes that do not meet the legal denition of abuse or

neglect are screened out. The intake is peer reviewed the following day by a Centralized Intake

(CI) CPS supervisor to ensure the accuracy of the original screening decision.

Children

West Virginia investigates/assesses all children in a household if any child in the household has

a maltreatment allegation. West Virginia began reporting sex trafcking data in FFY 2018.

Fatalities

Fatality information is collected by the Title IVE agency within the Ofce of the Chief Medical

Examiner. If there is no allegation that the child’s death or near death was due to maltreatment

or concerns of existing safety threats, CI screens those out.

Perpetrators

A maltreater must be 18 years old or a parenting youth under the age of 18. The NCANDS

category of “other” perpetrator relationship includes the state categories of non-guardian,

household members and out of household perpetrators regarding trafcking. Noncaregiver

perpetrators of sex trafcking are reported to NCANDS.

Services

All services in West Virginia are outsourced.

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 295

Wisconsin

Contact Wendy Henderson Phone 608–422–6989

Title Division of Safety and Permanence Email

wendy[email protected]

Address Wisconsin Department of Children and Families

201 West Washington Avenue

Madison, WI 53703

General

There were no signicant state policy changes that affect the data submission. Certain counties

in Wisconsin have implemented the Alternative Response (AR) approach. The maltreatment

disposition for AR assessments identies whether services are needed and will appear in

NCANDS as alternative response nonvictim dispositions.

Reports

The state data are child-based, with each report associated with a single child. The report date

is the date when the agency was notied of the alleged maltreatment, and the investigation start

date is the date when the agency made initial contact with the child or other family member. In

Wisconsin’s child protective services (CPS) system, multiple maltreatment reports for a single

child may be assessed during a single investigation.

There are a variety of reasons why a report might be screened out. In most cases screened-out

reports are those reports where the information provided does not constitute maltreatment of a

child or risk of maltreatment of a child. Additionally, when multiple reports are made about the

same maltreatment, the subsequent reports may be screened out. In Wisconsin, CPS agencies

are currently not required to investigate instances of abuse by noncaregivers, so those reports

may be screened out. In rare instances, cases may be screened out because there is insufcient

identiable information available. Finally, cases may be screened out because jurisdiction more

properly rests with another state.

There is no signicant difference in the number of referrals or screened-in referrals (reports)

between FFY 2022 and FFY 2021.

Children

A child is considered to be a victim when an allegation is substantiated. The NCANDS unsub-

stantiated maltreatment disposition includes instances where the allegation was unsubstantiated

for that child, or when critical sources of information cannot be found or accessed to determine

whether maltreatment as alleged occurred.

No changes were made to the policies regarding conducting investigations and assessments as a

result of the pandemic. Our state continued to conduct investigations and assessments through

face-to-face contact, as well as a combination of phone and video calls. All initial contact for

investigations and any contact necessary for ensuring children’s safety was expected to be

face-to-face. Workers continued to gather information per requirements laid out in the state’s

Initial Assessment Standards, Ongoing Services Standards, and Safety Intervention Standards.

DCF issued practice guidance for engaging families through virtual means, such as video calls,

for the purposes of information gathering and assessing during the pandemic.

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 296

Fatalities

The number of fatalities includes only those children who were reported as subjects of abuse

or neglect and the maltreatment allegation was substantiated. Only the Wisconsin Department

of Children and Families is involved in compiling information on child maltreatment fatalities,

and all fatalities are reported in the Child File.

Perpetrators

Details of the perpetrators is included for allegations in which the child was substantiated. The

NCANDS category “other” perpetrator relationship includes perpetrators who are not primary

or secondary caregivers to the child (such as non-caregivers) for example, another child or

peer of the child victim or a stranger. As mentioned previously, there are no substantiations in

AR cases, so the alleged perpetrators in AR cases will not be recorded as substantiated per-

petrators. Services, if needed, are established based on the assessment determination, not the

determination of a specic perpetrator.

Services

Wisconsin is currently not able to report prevention services. The state continues to support

data quality related to service documentation and ultimately to modify the NCANDS le to

incorporate services reporting for future data submissions.

Wisconsin (continued)

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 297

Wyoming

Contact Debra Hibbard Phone 307–777–5479

Title Deputy Administrator

Services Division

[email protected]

Address Wyoming Department of Family Services

2300 Capitol Avenue

Cheyenne, WY 82002

General

Wyoming has three (3) types of responses to child protection referrals. There is an

Investigation Track, Assessment Track, and a Prevention Track. The Investigation Track is

assigned as described in the Level of Evidence section. Victims that have been substantiated

on unsubstantiated are identied and reported to NCANDS through the Investigation Track.

The Assessment Track gets assigned if the referral alleges abuse and /or neglect but does not

meet the criteria for the Investigation Track. The Prevention Track is assigned when there

is no allegation of abuse and/or neglect, but there are identied risk factors that indicate the

need for services to prevent abuse and/or neglect. Non-victims are identied and reported to

NCANDS through the assessment and Prevention Tracks. No changes were made to policy

or programs during the COVID pandemic. Procedures for eld staff were adjusted to allow

for discretion when conducting visits with children, foster families and biological families

through mechanisms other than in person visits. These decisions are being made on a case-

by-case basis, and in consultation with supervisors and managers based on assessed safety

risk and need.

Reports

Wyoming saw an increase in the number of referrals for abuse/neglect due to children return-

ing back to school after the COVID pandemic lessened in severity and youth were no longer

being conned in their homes due to COVID restrictions and the children were seen on a

more frequent basis for observation.

Children

Wyoming did not change policy related to investigations and assessments. Procedures for

the investigation and assessment process continued to be conducted with caution. However,

workers were able to enter homes on a more frequent basis to conduct investigations and

assessments. In FFY 2022 the state implemented a tracking mechanism in SACWIS that will

allow for reporting on IPSE. This was implemented in December 2022 and guidance was

provided for all staff. In FFY 2023 we have data available. For prior years we have manually

collected this data through review of all intakes for calendar years 2021 and 2022. In 2022,

132 children were included in reports to the Department as it pertained to prenatal substance

exposure.

Fatalities

Wyoming did not change any policies related to child fatality reviews. Wyoming has a major

injury and fatality review team that is comprised of the Department of Family Services,

the Wyoming Citizen Review Panel, the Wyoming Children’s Trust Fund, the Wyoming

Department of Health, the Wyoming Department of Corrections, the Wyoming Division

of Victim Services, the Wyoming Department of Education as well as members represent-

ing the disciplines of judges, mental health, local medical professionals and local law

enforcement.

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 298

Perpetrators

Wyoming utilizes a SACWIS that is incident based and does not have the ability to cat-

egorize incidents to see trends. Over the course of the last three years the department has

developed and implemented a special investigation unit that has one focus of facility related

maltreatment, which has included updated procedures and two dedicated investigators.

Services

Wyoming had a slight reduction in Services Responses as the Department was able to offer

other services to children and families through other federal COVID Funds to better meet

their needs.

Wyoming (continued)

Child Maltreatment 2022

Appendix d: State Commentary 299