by The Children's Advocacy Institute and First Star

 

The Franklin Cover-Up -- Child Abuse, Satanism, and Murder in Nebraska, by John W. DeCamp

Report of the Grand Jury Into Sexual Abuse of Minors by Clergy in the Philadelphia Archdiocese, by Hon. Lynne Abraham, District Attorney

The Children’s Advocacy Institute (CAI) was founded in 1989 as part of the Center for Public Interest Law at the University of San Diego (USD) School of Law. CAI’s mission is to improve the health, safety, development, and well-being of children. CAI advocates in the legislature to make the law, in the courts to interpret the law, before administrative agencies to implement the law, and before the public to educate Californians on the status of children.

CAI strives to educate policy makers about the needs of children—about their needs for economic security, adequate nutrition, health care, education, quality child care, and protection from abuse, neglect, and injury. CAI’s goal is to ensure that children’s interests are represented effectively whenever and wherever government makes policy and budget decisions.

Robert C. Fellmeth, J.D., CAI’s Executive Director, is the Price Professor of Public Interest Law at the USD School of Law and founder of both CAI and the Center for Public Interest Law. Professor Fellmeth has over 30 years of experience as a public interest law litigator, teacher, and scholar.

First Star is a national 501(c)(3)established in 1999 to strengthen the rights and improve the lives of America’s abused and neglected children through education, public policy, legislative reform, and litigation. Our mission is to serve as a catalyst for meaningful reform of the child welfare system by highlighting critical systemic deficiencies and initiating change that will ultimately strengthen the rights of America’s most vulnerable children.

First Star works toward a day when children’s voices are heard and their basic civil rights recognized if they must pass through the child protective system.

First Star’s Co-Founder and President, Peter Samuelson, is a motion picture executive who founded the Starlight Children’s Foundation in 1982 and the Starbright Foundation in 1990.  Sherry A. Quirk, Esq., Co- Founder and Vice Chair of First Star, a partner of Schiff Hardin, LLP, is past president and founder of One Voice and the National Coalition of Abuse Awareness. Amy Harfeld, Executive Director of First Star, has over 15 years of experience in child advocacy as a Teach For America corpsmember, human rights worker, litigator, defender and activist.

First Star is proud to be a pro-bono client of Schiff Hardin, LLP.

For more information about this report or for additional copies, please contact:

or

Published by the Children’s Advocacy Institute of the University of San Diego School of Law.

Copyright © 2008 by the Children’s Advocacy Institute.

All rights reserved.

Table of Contents

• Acknowledgments

• Executive Summary

• Introduction

• Methodology

• Grade Criteria

• The Results:

  • Grades at a Glance

  • Grade Distribution

  • Point Distribution

  • State Results:

    • 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

    • Rhode Island

    • South Carolina

    • South Dakota

    • Tennessee

    • Texas

    • Utah

    • Vermont

    • Virginia

    • Washington

    • West Virginia

    • Wisconsin

    • Wyoming

• Appendix A: Correspondent State Liaison Officers for Abuse and Neglect & Correspondent Child Death Review Team Members

• Appendix B: Explanation of Grade Criteria

• Appendix C: Resource List

• Footnotes

---

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The Children’s Advocacy Institute and First Star would like to extend their warmest thanks to several individuals who contributed their knowledge and expertise to this project. Their insights and comments helped inform and improve the end product tremendously, and we greatly appreciate their time and efforts.

We thank the following individuals from the Children’s Advocacy Institute: staff attorneys Ed Howard, Christina Riehl, and Elisa Weichel, as well as the members of the CAI Council for Children: Gary Redenbacher, JD (Council Chair), Gary Richwald, MD, MPH (Council Vice-Chair), Robert Black, MD, John Goldenring, MD, MPH, JD, The Honorable Jan Goldsmith, Louise Horvitz, MSW, PsyD, The Honorable Leon Kaplan, James McKenna, Thomas Papageorge, JD, Blair Sadler, JD, Gloria Perez Samson, Alan Shumacher, MD, and Owen Smith, and emeritus members Birt Harvey, MD and Paul A. Peterson, JD.

We are also grateful to Dean Kevin Cole and Ashley Wood from the University of San Diego School of Law for their support and assistance, as well as Dr. Mary Lyons, President of the University of San Diego, and Dr. Julie Sullivan, Vice-President and Provost of the University of San Diego.

We also acknowledge the wonderful contributions of many individuals at First Star, including Peter Samuelson and Sherry Quirk, First Star’s founders, Erika Germer, MPP, Angelique Marriner, and Christina Pamies, and the First Star Policy Advisory Council: Chris Bailey, MA, JD, Howard Davidson, JD, Donald, Duquette, JD, The Honorable Charles D. Gill, Ann M. Haralambie, Esq., Astrid H. Heger, MD, Helaine Hornby, Miriam Krinsky, John E. B. Myers, Esq., Michael Piriano, Michael Petit, Lewis Pitts, Esq., The Honorable Charles B. Schudson, Shari Shink, Esq., Jane Spinak, JD, Kimberly Thompson ScD, Marvin R. Ventrell, JD, Carmen Delgado Votaw, and Grier Weeks.

We are also grateful to Curtis Child, Director, Office of Governmental Affairs, California’s Administrative Office of the Courts; Bill Grimm, Senior Attorney for the National Center for Youth Law; and Edward M. Opton, Jr., of counsel, National Center for Youth Law.

We also thank Jennifer Harfeld, Art Director, for her generous and creative assistance in designing the covers of this report.

Finally, we would like to thank the many State Liaison Officers for Child Abuse and Neglect, as well as the many other officials from state social services agencies and child fatality review teams across the country, who responded to our requests for information and who reviewed and provided helpful feedback on draft versions of our report.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This groundbreaking report jointly published by the Children’s Advocacy Institute (CAI) and First Star evaluates each state’s public disclosure practices about cases of child abuse or neglect that resulted in fatalities and near fatalities. Approximately 1,500 children die every year as a result of abuse or neglect in the United States. Countless more children suffer near death injuries caused by abuse or neglect. States are required to allow for public disclosure of the findings or information regarding those fatalities and near fatalities pursuant to the federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA). As this report reveals, however, while most states are generally in compliance with the limited letter of the federal statute, few state policies adequately further the legislative intent in these gravest cases. Information about these tragic incidents —information that helps drive systemic reform where warranted, and enables the public to hold child welfare systems accountable — is withheld by many jurisdictions. This is unacceptable.

CAPTA explicitly requires states to adopt “provisions which allow for public disclosure of the findings or information about the case of child abuse or neglect which has resulted in a child fatality or near fatality.” In providing clarification as to proper state execution of this provision, the Child Welfare Policy Manual declares that a state “does not have discretion in whether to allow the public access to the child fatality or near fatality information; rather, the public has the discretion as to whether to access the information.” A narrow reading of CAPTA—a reading favored by those public officials who might be embarrassed by public disclosure—frustrates the statute’s purposes and ignores the guidance provided by the Manual. CAI and First Star believe that in the best interests of children, states must follow a broad interpretation of CAPTA’s requirements regarding public disclosure.

The report compares the child death and near death disclosure laws and policies of all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia and ranks them from “A” for the best, most transparent policies to “F” for the most secretive or non-existent ones. The Report analyzes states based on the following criteria:

Regrettably, few states fared well under this examination:

This report aims to promote public awareness and discourse on the issue of public disclosure following child abuse and neglect deaths and near deaths, and to catalyze statewide and national legislative reform in order to better protect children and save lives. It also seeks to advocate for making information about child abuse and neglect deaths available to the public in a predictable, consistent, and enforceable manner, and ultimately to affect policy changes in the child welfare system that will better protect children, and to remove restrictions that inappropriately limit access to the information made public by CAPTA.

Many states fail to properly re-shift the balance between confidentiality and public disclosure required by CAPTA when a child dies or almost dies from maltreatment. Further, the exceptions, limitations, and conditions that many states impose on disclosure negate or significantly reduce the impact of the information provided.

The current undue emphasis on confidentiality only masks problems inherent in child protection systems. Public exposure is a necessary step toward fixing these problems. Each year, millions of taxpayer dollars go to support child protective services investigations. Accordingly, the public has aright to know if the laws for the protection of children are being followed and its tax dollars well-spent. Child abuse deaths and near deaths reflect the system’s worst failures. Until state laws require the release of accurate and unfiltered information, we cannot identify the fault lines, and cannot begin to fix them.

When abuse or neglect lead to a child’s death or near death, the state’s interest in confidentiality is secondary to the interests of the children who would be better protected and served by maximum transparency. An open system is a better system, draws attention to failures, empowers advocates, and ultimately better protects children. Through this report, First Star and CAI aim to hold child protection systems accountable through public scrutiny and to challenge each state to adopt the best practices available.

INTRODUCTION

 

On January 11, 2006, paramedics found 7-year-old Nixzmary Brown dead on the floor of her New York apartment, with two black eyes and most of her emaciated body covered by cuts and bruises. Nixzmary had been tied to a chair with duct tape and brutally beaten to death by her step-father as punishment for stealing a cup of yogurt. After reports that caseworkers missed multiple opportunities to intervene and save Nixzmary, Mayor Michael Bloomberg declared that the system had failed this child, and embarked on a system-wide overhaul of its Administration for Children’s Services.

Approximately 1,500 children like Nixzmary die every year as a result of child abuse and neglect in the United States. [1]Countless more children suffer near death injuries caused by abuse or neglect. Yet inmost cases, we know very little about these incidents because states have sub-standard policies on the public disclosure of information regarding child abuse or neglect fatalities and near fatalities.

Abuse and neglect deaths are child welfare agencies’ most crucial cases. Unfortunately, it is often only through such cases that lawmakers and the public learn of systemic inadequacies in child welfare systems. If improvements and reforms are to be achieved, it is vital that the facts about these cases reach the public in a meaningful way. The Children’s Advocacy Institute (CAI) and First Star believe that public access to the facts promotes public discourse and legislative action to protect all children.

This report compares the child death and near death disclosure laws and policies of all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia and ranks them from “A” for the best, most transparent policies to “F” for the most secretive or non-existent ones. The results reveal wide variation among the states, with only 2 states earning an “A”, an alarming 28 states deserving a “C+” or lower, and a staggering 10 states receiving an “F” grade. As the report reveals, not every state has adopted provisions allowing for such public disclosure, and for those that have, the provisions areas varied as the states themselves.

Information about these tragic incidents —information that helps drive systemic reform where warranted, and enables the public to hold child welfare systems accountable — is withheld by many jurisdictions. This is unacceptable. Other public safety and health crises, such as airplane crashes, food contamination, or police shootings, regularly receive intense public scrutiny that results in immediate reparative action. The public’s interest in the safety of children merits that same level of scrutiny on a regular basis.

 

First Star and CAI reveal in this report where each state stands on disclosure and provides grades based on specific criteria that, if in effect, would increase accountability and enhance protection of children across the nation.

ABOUT CAPTA

The federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) requires that each state, as a condition of federal grant funding, outline how it will achieve the statute’s purposes. State plans must include “methods to preserve ... confidentiality,” but they must also “allow for public disclosure of the findings or information about ... case[s] of child abuse or neglect [that have] resulted in a child fatality or near fatality.” [2] These provisions reflect an understanding that the value of confidentiality is greatly diminished in cases of fatalities and near fatalities, for in such cases it is of overwhelming importance to examine the performance of the system as a whole and to learn from any mistakes or failings.

As of 2006, all 50 states and the District of Columbia were accepting CAPTA funds. [3] It should follow that all states allow for public disclosure of information about cases of fatal and near-fatal child abuse and neglect. As this report reveals, however, while most states are generally in compliance with the limited letter of the statute, few state policies adequately further the legislative intent in these gravest cases.

In implementing the federal CAPTA statute, the Child Welfare Policy Manual interprets CAPTA’s mandates on public disclosure broadly. The Manual, which provides clarification as to proper state execution of CAPTA, directs that where CAPTA requires public disclosure of “findings or information” in the law, it requires disclosure of both findings and other information, stating that the intent of this provision was to assure the public is informed about cases of child abuse or neglect which result in the death or near death of a child. Further, the Manual explicitly emphasizes that the “State does not have discretion in whether to allow the public access to the child fatality or near fatality information; rather, the public has the discretion as to whether to access the information.” [4]  A narrow reading of CAPTA—a reading favored by those who might be embarrassed by public disclosure—frustrates the statute’s purposes and ignores the guidance provided by the Manual.

CAI and First Star believe that in the best interests of children, states must follow a broad interpretation of CAPTA’s requirements regarding public disclosure. When abuse or neglect lead to a child’s death or near death, the state’s interest in confidentiality is secondary to the interests of the children who would be better protected and served by maximum transparency. An open system is a better system, draws attention to failures, empowers advocates, and ultimately better protects children. Through this report, First Star and CAI aim to hold child protection systems accountable through public scrutiny and to challenge each state to adopt the best practices available.

 

BACKGROUND AND GOALS OF REPORT

This project began as an effort by the University of San Diego School of Law’s Children’s Advocacy Institute (CAI) to update and expand upon a 2005 document compiled by the Child Welfare Information Gateway entitled “Disclosure of Confidential Child Abuse and Neglect Records: Summary of State Laws.” CAI focused its update on the specific public disclosure policies in each state regarding information on child fatalities and near fatalities caused by abuse and neglect. [5] To do so, CAI and First Star researched and reviewed child abuse and neglect statutes state by state; contacted each state’s liaison officer for abuse and neglect  [6] to request a list of any existing statutes or policies relating to public disclosure of child fatality and near fatality information; developed multi-level criteria to assess each state’s level of transparency with regard to disclosure; drafted and distributed preliminary versions of each state’s Report Card to the state liaison officers and child death review teams for comment; and made appropriate revisions to the criteria and scores based on comments from the state representatives, as well as from child advocates who peer-reviewed the report.

This report aims to promote public awareness and discourse on the issue of public disclosure following child abuse and neglect deaths and near deaths, and to catalyze statewide and national legislative reform in order to better protect children and save lives.

The primary goal of this report is to advocate for making information about child abuse and neglect deaths available to the public in a predictable, consistent, and enforceable manner. CAI and First Star believe that providing public access to these most extreme cases will promote public discourse and examination of the circumstances that led to the fatality or near fatality, thereby promoting development of child protection policies, procedures, practices, and strategies that reduce or prevent future incidents of child neglect, abuse, and fatalities.

A second, equally important goal of this report is to encourage enforceability. In conducting this evaluation, it has become clear that many states periodically disclose information far beyond that which is required by their public disclosure policies. However, when such disclosure is discretionary (not mandated by statute or official policy), it is not predictable, consistent or enforceable. To properly credit states that are practicing more transparent disclosure than their policies suggest, the quality of the information released must be reflected in their laws. Thus, a major goal of this project is to encourage state legislatures to modify their statutes to properly indicate the required transparency, thus making disclosure policies more enforceable.

 

This report also seeks to remove restrictions that inappropriately limit access to the information made public by CAPTA. For example, some statutes provide for public disclosure in the case of a child fatality or near fatality, but indicate that release may occur only after a petition has been filed. The burden of requiring the filing of a petition creates a vicious cycle because the names of children in the foster care system are usually held confidential and it is extremely difficult to file a petition for the release of records for a child whose name is not known. Additionally, some states provide that information will not be released until the alleged perpetrator is criminally charged (or would have been but for the alleged perpetrator’s death). The disclosure of public information relating to these cases should not be dependent on the district attorney’s decision to prosecute, as the criminal proceedings are not relevant to the reasons underlying the importance of the disclosure of information regarding the circumstances of a child’s death.

 

CONCLUSION

Many states fail to properly reshift the balance between confidentiality and public disclosure required by CAPTA when a child dies or almost dies from maltreatment. Further, the exceptions, limitations, and conditions that many states impose on disclosure negate or significantly reduce the quality of the information provided.

The current undue emphasis on confidentiality only masks problems inherent in child protection systems. Public exposure is a necessary step toward fixing these problems. Each year, millions of taxpayer dollars go to support child protective services investigations. Accordingly, the public has aright to know if the laws for the protection of children are being followed and its tax dollars well-spent. Child abuse deaths and near deaths reflect the system’s worst failures. Until state laws require the release of accurate and unfiltered information, we cannot identify the fault lines in the system, and cannot begin to fix them.

As in the cases of Nixzmary, Haleigh, and Rebecca, some tragic incidents are widely publicized and may lead to changes in the child welfare system. However, those changes are usually knee-jerk responses that address only the specific factors present in an individual case. Enhanced public disclosure of all child abuse and neglect deaths and near deaths enables the public, child advocates, and policymakers to work together to understand comprehensive trends and craft more thoughtful, comprehensive reforms that will help reduce or prevent the occurrence of future tragedies.

The necessary changes will not occur spontaneously. Only pressure from the public, media, advocates and legislators will assure that future editions of this report contain more “A”s and fewer “F”s.

 

METHODOLOGY

This report presents a national evaluation of each state’s level of transparency with respect to the information released to the public following child fatalities and near-fatalities resulting from abuse or neglect. The grading system is based on multi-level criteria; specifically (1) does the state have an official policy regarding the disclosure to the public of findings or information about the case of child abuse or neglect which has resulted in a child fatality or near fatality, (2) is that policy codified in statute, (3) what is the ease of access to the information (and whether there are conditions precedent that must take place in order for the information to be made available), (4) what is the scope of information released (what types of information is made available, what are the exceptions and the latitude for exclusion), and (5) what is the background level of transparency (i.e., the level of confidentiality maintained by the state’s juvenile courts). The criteria was developed and approved by a panel of child welfare attorneys and child advocates.

CAI then reviewed child abuse and neglect statutes state by state; contacted the state liaison officer for abuse and neglect from each state requesting a list of any existing statutes or policies relating to public disclosure of child fatality and near fatality information; [7]  developed multi-level criteria to assess each state’s level of transparency with regard to disclosure; drafted and distributed a preliminary report card to each liaison officer for comment; [8] and made appropriate revisions to the criteria and scores based on comments from the state representatives, [9] as well as from child advocates who peer-reviewed the report. CAI then sent a final preliminary report card to both the state liaison officers for each state, as well as to each state’s fatality review team. [10]

It is the authors’ intention to conduct periodic updates of this evaluation. Accordingly, each grade is subject to adjustment based on future developments in case law, statutory amendments, and clarification by state officials.

GRADING SYSTEM

97–100A+
93–96A
90–92A–
87–89B+
83–86B
80–82B–
77–79C+
73–76C
70–72C–
67–69D+
63–66D
60–62D-
59 AND BELOW F

GRADE CRITERIA

GRADE CRITERIA [11]

1. State Policy for Public Disclosure(0–40 points)

Does the state have an articulated, official policy regarding the disclosure to the public of findings or information about the case of child abuse or neglect which has resulted in a child fatality or near fatality?

2. Policy Codified in Statute (0–10 points) Is the state’s policy on the release of information on cases of child deaths and near deaths resulting from abuse or neglect codified in statute, or is it contained in regulation or written (or oral) policy? Policies codified in statute provide more permanency and enforceability.

3. Ease of Access to the Information(0–20 points) Does the policy use mandatory or permissive language regarding the disclosure of information? Is the release of information contingent on conditions precedent (e.g., the filing of criminal charges or a court petition, having the death be a matter of public record, being able to specify the identity of the child involved, or the existence of prior agency involvement with the child or family)?

4. Scope of Information Released (0–20 points) What is the scope of information authorized for release? Is it narrow, does it have some breadth, does it have substantial breadth, or is it vague and unclear? Does the policy include exceptions that inhibit or decrease the type of information that will be released (e.g., exceptions that prohibit disclosure where it would be contrary to the best interests of the child, a sibling, or parent; would interfere with the privacy of the child, sibling, or parent; or would be likely to result in an emotional or mental reaction)?

5. Open vs. Closed Abuse/NeglectProceedings (0–10 points) Does the state allow public access to Dependency Court (abuse/neglect) proceedings? Such access enhances the public’s ability to hold parties accountable for their acts and omissions, and to determine when systemic and/or specific problems exist in the child protection system that can be addressed through appropriate reforms.

THE RESULTS

GRADES AT A GLANCE

 

GRADE DISTRIBUTION

 

DISTRIBUTION OF GRADES

POINT DISTRIBUTION

STATE RESULTS

 

Alabama Grade: B–

 

Alaska Grade: C

 

Arizona Grade: B

 

* Pending at the time of this report, H.B. 2454 is being considered by the Arizona Legislature. Among other things, this bill would amend Arizona’s public disclosure policy to provide that the department “shall promptly provide CPS information to the public, or to any person who requests access to this information, regarding a case of child abuse or neglect that resulted in a fatality or near fatality caused by abuse, abandonment or neglect. The department shall promptly notify the county attorney of any decision to release CPS information and the county attorney shall promptly inform the department if it believes that release of this information would cause a specific, material harm to a criminal investigation. The department shall produce as much information about a fatality or near fatality as promptly as possible, and its duty to disclose is a continuing duty.”

Arkansas Grade: C–

 

California Grade: A–

 

* DSS’ 2008 All County Letter No. 08-13 requires counties to complete and submit a “Statement of Findings and Information” for all cases of child fatalities where there is “reasonable suspicion” that they resulted from abuse or neglect, but provides that counties must complete and submit the form for cases of near fatalities only when it “is determined” that the incident occurred as a result of abuse or neglect.

Colorado Grade: D

 

Connecticut Grade: B–

 

Delaware Grade: C

 

District of Columbia Grade: B–

 

Florida Grade: B+

 

Georgia Grade: F

 

Hawaii Grade: B–

 

Idaho Grade: B–

 

Illinois Grade: B+

 

* 325 ILCS 5/4.2 was amended by P.A. 95-405 with changes that will go into effect on June 1, 2008. All references to 325 ILCS 5/4.2 refer to the statutory language as it will be on and after June 1, 2008.

Indiana Grade: A–

 

Iowa Grade: A–

 

Kansas Grade: B

 

Kentucky Grade: C-

 

Louisiana Grade: C-

 

Maine Grade: D+

 

Maryland Grade: F

 

Massachusetts Grade: D-

 

* Although Massachusetts does not have a policy specifically implementing the CAPTA requirement regarding public disclosure of findings or information on cases of child abuse or neglect that result in fatalities or near fatalities, it does require its child fatality review team to release certain information to the public; thus, points were provided based on the quality and availability of that public information.

Michigan Grade: B-

 

Minnesota Grade: B

 

Mississippi Grade: B-

 

Missouri Grade: B-

 

Montana Grade: F

 

Nebraska Grade: C+

 

* The authors believe that the policy Nebraska had prior to the March 10, 2008 enactment of Legislative Bill 782 authorized a broader scope of information for release to the public.  That policy, which was codified at Neb. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 28-736, authorized disclosure of dates, outcomes, results of any actions taken or services rendered, confirmation that investigations were conducted, results of investigations, a description of conduct of the most recent investigation and services rendered, and the basis for the agency's decision.

Nevada Grade: A

 

New Hampshire Grade: A

 

* While abuse and neglect hearings are generally closed to the public pursuant to RSA 169-C:14, the New Hampshire legislature has established temporary pilot projects in Frafton, Rockingham, and Sullivan counties, subject to certain restrictions.  Abuse and neglect hearings in these counties will be open to the public unless the court determines that the disclosure of some or all of the evidence would be contrary to the best interests of the child, or that disclosure would would cause unreasonable harm to one or more of the parties.  Any party may request the court to order, or the court on its own initiative may order, that all or a portion of a hearing be closed to the public.  Medical and psychological reports, records, and profiles, and testimony referring to the contents of such reports, records, and profiles, shall remain confidential in all abuse and neglect proceedings.  When the child who is the subject of the proceedings is present at a hearing, it shall be presumed that admitting non-parties would be contrary to the best interest of the child, or would cause unreasonable harm.

New Jersey Grade: B-

 

New Mexico Grade: F

 

New York Grade: B+

 

North Carolina Grade: C

 

North Dakota Grade: F

 

Ohio Grade: C+

 

Oklahoma Grade: C+

 

Oregon Grade: A-

 

Pennsylvania Grade: F

 

* Although 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 6347 requires the Department of Public Welfare of the Commonwealth to prepare and transmit to the Governor and the General Assembly a quarterly report that includes a summary of the findings with non identifying information about each case of child abuse or neglect that has resulted in a child fatality or near fatality, the statute does not specifically authorize the release of such reports to the public.

Rhode Island Grade: C-

 

South Carolina Grade: C

 

* Although the statute is silent with regard to its scope, the South Carolina Department of Social Services contends that S.C. Code Ann. § 20-7-690(G) allows for disclosure in both fatality and near fatality situations.

South Dakota Grade: F

 

Tennessee Grade: F

 

* Tennessee authorities referred the authors to several sections of law, including Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 68-142-108(e), 37-1-612, and 37-5-107, and DCS Child Protective Services Policy Chapter 14.13; however, none of those provisions set forth a policy allowing public disclosure of findings or information about child abuse or neglect which has resulted in a child fatality or near fatality.

However, a Tennessee authority indicated to the authors that "[t]he Director of Communications provides disclosure on child fatalities when requested while withholding names and other identifying information unless it has already been made public.  The known facts surrounding the death and information that is necessary to ensure public accountability for our agency is also released."  Although this language could not be located in any statutory, regulatory, or other official form, the authors are recognizing it as a policy worthy of receiving some credit.  Formal adoption of this policy into statutory form would provide the public with predictable, consistent, and enforceable access to information it is entitled to receive pursuant to CAPTA.

Texas Grade: C+

 

* Although Texas does not have a policy specifically implementing the CAPTA requirement regarding public disclosure of findings or information on cases of child abuse or neglect that result in fatalities or near fatalities, it does require its child fatality review team to release certain information to the public; thus, points were provided based on the quality and availability of that public information.

Utah Grade: F

 

Vermont Grade: F

 

Virginia Grade: C-

 

Washington Grade: B

 

West Virginia Grade: B-

 

Wisconsin Grade: D

 

Wyoming Grade: D+

 

Appendix A

Correspondent State Liaison Officers for Abuse and Neglect & Correspondent Child Death Review Team Members

 

[1] An underlined name indicates the state liaison officer for abuse and neglect who received a copy of both the preliminary report card and the revised report for comment.  A bolded name indicates the child death review team member who received a revised report card for comment.  Those states in which the representatives did not respond to our requests for information, the grades are based on a thorough review of existing statutes.

Appendix B

Explanation of Grade Criteria

Criteria # 1:  Is there a state policy regarding the public disclosure of information regarding a case of child abuse or neglect that results in death or near death?

Point Range: 0-40

Explanation:

 

Criteria #2:  Is the state's policy on the release of information on cases of child deaths and near deaths resulting from abuse or neglect codified in statute, or is it contained in regulation or written (or oral) policy?

Point Range: 1-10

Explanation:

• 10 points maximum will be given if the state has a policy addressing cases of death and near death which is codified in statute, which provides permanency and enforceability.
• 7 points maximum will be given if the state has a policy addressing cases of death and near death which is contained in an agency-adopted regulation.
• 3 points maximum will be given if the state has a policy addressing cases of death and near death which is contained in an agency policy or guideline.

For policies addressing only cases of death, or where a state has different policies for cases of death and near death, the following point structure applies.  Note that these scores may be cumulative (e.g., a state that has a policy addressing cases of death that is codified in statute and a policy addressing cases of near death that is set forth in agency policy or guideline would receive a 7 + 1, for a total grade of 8 points).

Criteria #3:  What is the public's ease of access to the information?

Point Range: 0-20

Explanation:

• 20 points maximum will be given if the state's disclosure policy addresses cases of death and near death and clearly uses mandatory language (the state "shall" or "must" disclose).
• 10 points maximum will be given if the state's disclosure policy addresses cases of death and near death and uses permissive language (the state "may" or "is permitted" to disclose).

Points are deducted from the above maximums where there is a condition placed on the release of the information (classified as either (1) a moderately restrictive condition of (2) a severely restrictive or multiple condition(s)).

For policies that address only cases of death, or where states have different policies for cases of death and near death, the following point structure applies.  Note that these scores may be cumulative (e.g., a state that has a mandatory policy with no conditions addressing cases of death and a permissive policy with no conditions addressing cases of near death would receive a 15 + 3, for a total grade of 18 points)

 

Examples of moderately restrictive conditions:

• the requestor must petition a court or otherwise obtain court authorization or approval of disclosure request
• the child must have been subject of one or more reports of harm
• the agency must have had prior involvement with the child or the child's family
• disclosure must be authorized by the district attorney or comparable official

Examples of severely restrictive conditions:

• the requestor must be able to specify the identity of the child
• criminal charged must be filed
• the death must first be a matter of public record
• the requestor must meet specified criteria, none of which is being a member of the general public
• the requestor must obtain both the approval of the prosecutor and court authorization

Criteria #4:  What is the scope of information that will be released?

Point Range: 0-20

Explanation:

• 20 points maximum will be given for a state policy that has substantial breadth.  A state's scope has substantial breadth if it is silent as to the release of the child's name, but explicitly authorizes the release of other pertinent information (emphasis on circumstances of abuse or neglect), or if it explicitly authorizes the release of the child's name under specified circumstances as well as other pertinent information (emphasis on circumstances of abuse or neglect), or if it prohibits the release of the child's name but provides an extensive list of pertinent information (emphasis on circumstances of abuse or neglect).
• 12 points maximum will be given for a state policy that has some breadth.  A state's scope has some breadth if it authorizes the release of the child's name but provides no further specificity; or if it withholds the child's name but explicitly authorizes the release of other pertinent information (emphasis on circumstances of abuse or neglect).
• 10 points maximum will be given if a state policy is narrow.  A state's scope is considered narrow if it explicitly limits release of pertinent information (emphasis on circumstances of abuse or neglect).
• 10 points maximum will be given if a state policy is vague and unclear.  A state's policy is vague and unclear if it provides no specificity (i.e., there is no clear indication of what type of information is released upon request), but also provides no explicit limitations on what will be disclosed.

Points are deducted from the above maximums where there is a substantive limitation on the information that will be released (classified as either (1) a moderately restrictive substantive limitation or (2) a severely restrictive or multiple substantive limitation(s)).

For policies that address only cases of death, or where states have different policies for cases of death and near death, the following point structure applies.  Note that these scores may be cumulative (e.g., a state that has a narrow policy with no substantive limitations addressing cases of death and a vague and unclear policy with no substantive limitations addressing cases of near death would receive a maximum of 7.5 + 2.5, for a total possible grade of 10 points).

 

Examples of moderately restrictive substantive limitations:

• information disclosure of which is likely to result in an emotion or mental reaction
• information that is otherwise confidential, exempt, or privileged

Examples of severely restrictive substantive limitations:

• information disclosure of which would be contrary to the best interests of the child
• information disclosure of which would interfere with the privacy of the child, sibling, or parent
• information disclosure of which would jeopardize the well-being of a person named in the report if that concern outweighs the public's interest in the disclosure of that information
• information that contains no findings or information about specific cases of death or near death caused by abuse or neglect, and instead provides only system-wide recommendations

Criteria #5:  Are the state's dependency courts open or closed to the public?

Point Range: 0-10

Explanation:

• 10 points maximum will be given to a state having an open or presumably open dependency court system, which provides greater public access to information about the efficacy of the child welfare system.
• 6 points maximum will be given to a state if its dependency court is presumptively closed but subject to being opened to some extent under specified conditions.
• 0 points will be given to a state with a closed dependency court system.

Appendix C

Child Welfare Resource List

Government Agencies and Private Organizations

Administration for Children & Families, U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Services -- www.acf.hhs.gov/acf_about.html

American Bar Association Center on Children and the Law -- http://www.abanet.org/child/home.html

American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children -- http://www.apsac.org

American Public Human Services Association -- http://www.aphsa.org/Home/News.asp

Chadwick Center for Children and Families -- http://www.ChadwickCenter.org

Chapin Hall Center for Children -- http://www.chapinhall.org

Child Abuse Prevention Network -- http://www.child-abuse.com

Child Welfare Information Gateway -- www.childwelfare.gov/

Child Welfare League of America -- http://www.cwla.org/

Childhelp® -- http://www.childhelp.org/

Children's Advocacy Institute -- www.caichildlaw.org

Children's Bureau -- http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/

Children's Bureau Express -- http://cbexpress.acf.hhs.gov/

Children's Bureau:   Child Maltreatment 2006 -- http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm06/index.htm

Children's Defense Fund -- http://www.childrensdefense.org

Children's Safety Network -- htttp://cbexpress.acf.hhs.gov/

First Star -- www.firststar.org

Kempe Children's Center -- http://www.kempecenter.org

National Association of Counsel for children -- www.naccchildlaw.org

National Center on Child Fatality Review -- www.ican-ncfr.org/

National Center for Health Statistics -- www.cdc.gov/nchs/

National Center for Injury Prevention and Control -- www.cdc.gov/ncipc/

National Center for Youth Law -- www.youthlaw.org

National Children's Advocacy Center -- http://www.nationalcac.org/

National Citizen's Review Panels -- www.uky.edu/SocialWork/crp/

National Foster Parent Association -- http://www.nfpainc.org

National MCH Center for Death Review -- www.childdeathreview.org

National Resource Center for Child Protective Services -- http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/tta/nrccps.htm

Prevent Child Abuse America -- http://www.preventchildabuse.org/

Voices for America's Children -- www.voices.org

Child Abuse Reporting Hotlines:

Childhelp National Child Abuse Hotline: 1-800-4-A-CHILD

The following are state hotline numbers and websites for specific agencies designated to receive and investigate reports of suspected child abuse and neglect.

Alabama: (334) 242-9500 / http://www.dhr.state.al.us/page.asp?pageid=304

Alaska: (800) 478-4444 / http://www.hss.state.ak.us/ocs/default.htm

Arizona: (888) SOS-CHILD (888)767-2445 / https://www.azdes.gov/dcyf/cps/reporting.asp

Arkansas:  (800) 482-5964 / http://www.state.ar.us/dhs/chilnfam/child_protective_services.htm

California:  Find hotlines for all 58 counties at http://www.childsworld.ca.gov/res/pdf/CPSEmergNumbers.pdf

Colorado:  (303) 866-5932 / http://www.cdhs.state.co.us/childwelfare/FAQ.htm

Connecticut:  (800) 624-5518 / (800) 842-2288 / http://www.state.ct.us/dcf/HOTLINE.htm

Delaware:  (800) 292-9582 / http://www.state.de.us/kids/

District of Columbia:  (202) 671-SAFE (202) 671-7233 / http://cfsa/dc.gov/cfsa/cwp/view.asp?a=3&q=520663&cfsaNav=[31319]

Florida: (800) 96-ABUSE (800) 962-2873 / http://www.dcf.state.fl.us/abuse/

Georgia: http://dfcs.dhr.georgia.gov/portal/site or call Childhelp® at (800) 422-4453

Hawaii:  (808) 832-5300 / http://www.hawaii.gov/dhs/protection/social_services/child_welfare/

Idaho: (800) 926-2588 / http://www.healthandwelfare.idaho.gov/site/3333/default.aspx

Illinois:  (800) 252-2873 / (217) 524-2606 / http://www.state.il.us/dcfs/child/index.shtml

Indiana:  (800) 800-5556 / http://www.in.gov/dcs/protection/dfcchi.html

Iowa:  (800) 362-2178 / http://www.dhs.state.ia.us/dhs2005/dhs_homepage/children_family/abuse_reporting/child_abuse.html

Kansas:  (800) 922-5330 / http://www.srskansas.org/services/child_protective_services.htm

Kentucky: (800) 752-6200 / http://chfs.ky.gov/dcbs/dpp/childsafety.htm

Louisiana:  http://www.dss.state.la.us/departments/ocs/Reporting_Child_Abuse-Neglect.html or call Childhelp® at (800) 422-4453

Maine:  (800) 963-9490 / (800) 452-1999 / http://www.maine.gov/dhhs/bcfs/abusereporting.htm

Maryland:  http://www.dhr.state.md.us/cps/report.htm or call Childhelp® at (800) 422-4453

Massachusetts:  (800) 792-5200 / http://mass.gov/?pageID=eohhs2terminal&L=5&LO-Home&LI-Consumer&L2=Family+Services&L3-Violence%2c+Abuse+or+Neglect&L4=Child+Abuse_and+Neglect&sid=Eeohhs2&b=terminalcontent&f=dss_c_can_reporting&csid=Eeohhs2

Michigan:  http://www.michigan.gov/dhs/0,1607,7-124-5452_7119-7193-15252--,00.html or call Childhelp® at (800) 422-4453

Minnesota:  http://www.dhs.state.mn.us/main/idcplg?IDcService=GET_DYNAMIC_CONVERSION&RevisionSelectionMethod=LatesReleased&dDocName=id_000152 or call Childhelp® at (800) 422-4453.

Mississippi:  (800) 222-8000 / (601) 359-4991 / http://www.mdhs.state.ms.us/fcs_prot.html

Missouri:  (800) 392-3738 / (573) 751-3448 / http://www.dss.mo.gov/cd/rptcan.htm

Montana:  (866) 820-5437 / http://www.dphhs.mt.gov/cfsd/index.shtml

Nebraska:  (800) 652-1999 / http://www.hhs.state.ne.us.cha/chaindex.htm

Nevada:  (800) 992-5757 / http://dcfs.state.nv.us/DCFS_ReportSuspectedChildAbuse.htm

New Hampshire:  (800) 894-5533 / (603) 271-6556 / http://www.dhhs.state.nh.us/DHHS/BCP/default.htm

New Jersey:  (800) 835-5510 / (800) 835-5510 / (877) 652-2873 / http://www.state.nj.us/dcf/abuse/how/

New Mexico:  (800) 797-3260 / (505) 841-6100 / http://www.cyfd.org/report.htm

New York:  TDD: (800) 369-2437 / (800) 342-3720 / (518) 474-8740 / http://www.ocfs.state.ny.us/main/cps/

North Carolina:  http://www.dhhs.state.nc.us/dss/cps.index.htm or call Childhelp® at (800) 422-4453.

North Dakota:  http://www.nd.gov/dhs/services/childfamily/cps/#reporting or call Childhelp® at (800) 422-4453.

Ohio: http://jfs.ohio.gov/county/cntydir.stm or call Childhelp® at (800) 422-4453.

Oklahoma:  (800) 522-3511 / http://www.okdhs.org/programsandservices/cps/default.htm

Oregon:  http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/children/abuse/cps/report.shtml or call Childhelp® at (800) 422-4453.

Pennsylvania:  (800) 932-0313 / http://www.dpw.state.pa.us/ServicesPrograms/ChildWelfare/003671030.htm

Rhode Island:  (800) RI-CHILD (800) 742-4453 / http://www.dcyf.ri.gov/child_welfare/index.php

South Carolina:  (803) 898-7318 / http:www.state.sc.us/dss.cps/index.html

South Dakota:  http://dss.sd.gov/cps/protective/reporting.asp or call Childhelp® at (800) 422-4453.

Tennessee:  (877) 237-0004 / http://state.tn.us/youth/childsafety.htm

Texas:  (800) 252-5400 / http://www.dfps.state.tx.us/Child_Protection?About_Child_Protective_Services/reportChldAbuse.asp

Utah:  (800) 678-9399 / http://www.hsdcfs.utah.gov

Vermont:  (800) 649-5285 / http://www.dcf.state.vt.us/fsd/reporting/index.html

Virginia:  (800) 552-7096 / (804) 786-8536 / http://www.dss.virginia.gov/family/cps/index.html

Washington:  TTY: (800) 624-6186 / (866) END-HARM (866) 363-4276 / After hours: (800) 562-5624 / http://www1.dshs.wa.gov/ca/safety/abuseReport.asp?2

West Virginia:  (800) 352-6513 / http://www.wvdhhr.org/bcf/children_adult/cps/report.asp

Wisconsin:  http://www.dhfs.state.wi.us/Chldren/CPS/cpswimap.HTM or call Childhelp® at (800) 422-4453.

Wyoming:  http://dfsweb.state.wy.us/menu.htm or call Childhelp® at (800) 422-4453.

Children's Advocacy Institute, University of San Diego School of Law, 5998 Alcala Park, San Diego, CA 92110, 619-260-4806, www.caichildlaw.org

First Star, 1666 K Street NW Suite 300, Washington, D.C. 20006, 202-293-3703, www.firststar.org

_______________

Footnotes

1. Although about 1,500 child abuse and neglect deaths are reported each year, the actual figure is probably much higher. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, child maltreatment fatalities are drastically underreported in some jurisdictions because of inadequate investigations, lack of information-sharing between investigators and agencies, and reporting systems that fail to capture the contribution of maltreatment as a cause of death. See, e.g., B. Ewigman, MD, MSPH, C. Kivlahan, MD, MSPH, and G. Land, MPH, “The Missouri Child Fatality Study: Underreporting of Maltreatment Fatalities Among Children Younger Than Five Years of Age, 1983 Through 1986,” PEDIATRICS Vol. 91 No. 2 (February1993) at 330-337.

2. 42 U.S.C. 5106a(b)(2)(A)(x).

3. U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services, Administration for Children3& Families, “Basic State Grants, Child Abuse Protection and Treatment Act (CAPTA), States FY 2006 Estimates,” available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/.

4. U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services, Administration for4Children & Families, “Child Welfare Policy Manual,” section 2.1A.4, available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/j2ee/programs/cb/laws_policies/laws/cwpm/policy_dsp.jsp?citID=68.

5. Most states have child fatality review commissions, or comparable5entities, that are charged with looking into all child deaths. These entities represent a critical step forward in recognizing the importance of thorough information gathering when a child dies. Their work should be applauded. However, most of these entities do not investigate child near deaths, nor do they provide public disclosure of findings or information on child death cases. For that reason, we only recognize states’ child fatality review commissions as meeting the CAPTA requirement if their mandate requires them to make information available to the public.

6.  See Appendix A. CAI obtained the list of state liaison officers6(SLOs) for child abuse and neglect from the Child Welfare Information Gateway, a service of the Children's Bureau, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Each state has an SLO, who is responsible for ensuring the compliance of state laws and policies regarding childabuse and neglect. According to the Gateway, the process for the selection of SLO varies from state to state. In some states, the Child Protective Services program manager is also the SLO.

7. CAI received an initial email response from the following 42 states:7Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

8. CAI received responses to the preliminary report card from the8following 27 states: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, California, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

9. CAI received no response whatsoever, despite repeated requests, from the following 3 states: Georgia, Massachusetts, and Mississippi.

10. CAI received responses to the final preliminary report card from the10SLO or fatality review teams in the following 16 jurisdictions: Arizona, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, and Wyoming.

11.  For more information on the grade criteria, please see Appendix B.

Return to Table of Contents