Child Maltreatment Report 2020, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services

Child Maltreatment
2020
25
31stth
NG
YE
R
A
TI
OF R
R EPO
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 [email protected] or 1–800–394–3366. If you have
questions about a specific state’s data or policies, contact information is provided for each state
in Appendix D, State Commentary.
Data Sets
Restricted use files of the NCANDS data are archived at the National Data Archive on Child
Abuse and Neglect (NDACAN) at Cornell University. Researchers who are interested in these
data for statistical analyses may contact NDACAN by phone at 607–255–7799, by email at
[email protected] 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. (2022). Child Maltreatment
2020. 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
[email protected]
Child Maltreatment
2020
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES
Letter from the Associate Commissioner:
Child Maltreatment 2020 is the latest edition of the annual Child Maltreatment report series.
States 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. Data have been
collected every year since 1991 and are collected from child welfare agencies in the 50 states,
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia. Key findings in this report
include:
■ The national rounded number of children who received a child protective services investigation
response or alternative response decreased from 3,476,000 for federal fiscal year (FFY) 2019 to
3,145,000 for FFY 2020.
■ Comparing the national rounded number of victims from FFY 2019 (656,000) to the national
rounded number of victims in 2020 (618,000) also shows a decrease.

■ The FFY 2020 data show three-quarters (76.1%) of victims are neglected, 16.5 percent are
physically abused, 9.4 percent are sexually abused, and 0.2 percent are sex trafficked.
■ The national estimate of victims who died from abuse and neglect decreased from 1,830 for
FFY 2019 to 1,750 for FFY 2020. The rate of child fatalities also decreased from 2.48 per
100,000 children in the population to 2.38 per 100,000 children in the population.1
The Child Maltreatment report series is an important resource relied upon by thousands of
researchers, practitioners, and advocates throughout the world. The report is available from
our website at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb/data-research/child-maltreatment.
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 and will continue to do everything we can to
promote the safety and well-being of our nation’s children.
Sincerely,
/s/
Aysha E. Schomburg
Associate Commissioner
Children’s Bureau
1 If fewer than 52 states reported data, 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 2019, 52 states reported data and for 2020, 51 states reported data.
Child Maltreatment 2020

Letter ii
Acknowledgements
The Administration on Children, Youth and Families (ACYF) strives to ensure the well-
being 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 are analyzed, dissemi-
nated, and released in an annual report. Child Maltreatment 2020 marks the 31st edition of
this report. The administration hopes that the report continues to serve as a valuable resource
for policymakers, child welfare practitioners, researchers, and other concerned citizens.
The 2020 national statistics were based upon receiving case-level and aggregate data from
the 50 states, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia.
ACYF 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 reflect the work of their agencies.
ACYF gratefully acknowledges the priorities that were set by state and local agencies to
submit these 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.
The Children’s Bureau greatly appreciates the dedication of child welfare agencies to ensure
worker’s safety while continuing to serve children and families during a global pandemic.
Child Maltreatment 2020 Acknowledgements iii

‍ hild Abuse and Neglect
C
Data During the Pandemic
The child maltreatment data collected from states and analyzed for this year’s report are
different from data collected during prior years due to the pandemic caused by COVID-19.2
While the core of this annual Child Maltreatment report remains the same as in previous
years, tables comparing 2020 to 2019 data by quarters are added for key analyses to examine
differences. The quarterly breakouts were chosen to enable targeted analyses of the lockdown
period of March–June. These tables are located in Chapter 7, Special Focus. Additionally,
states were encouraged to provide comments about how their child welfare agencies con-
ducted operations during the year and especially during the lockdown period. Many states
provided comments, which are included in Appendix D, State Commentary.
Nearly every state and U.S. Territory experienced some lockdown restrictions to reduce the
spread of COVID-19. Most schools transitioned to virtual classrooms making it difficult
for the largest group of child abuse and neglect reporters, education personnel, to observe
suspected maltreatment and submit maltreatment allegations. According to Education Week,
a nonprofit organization dedicated to reporting education-related news since 1981, “at their
peak, the [school] closures affected at least 55.1 million students in 124,000 U.S. public and
private schools.”3 Whether or not a school closed, how long the closure lasted, and when
and how the school transitioned to virtual learning varied widely depending upon the school
district, region, and state. Education Week has since stopped updating its state maps, but
information for the 2020–2021 school year may be found on its website at
https://www.edweek.org/leadership/map-where-are-schools-closed/2020/07.
According to comments provided by states in appendix D, many Hotlines transitioned to

virtual call centers with little or no down time and remained open throughout lockdown.
In addition, 22 states said their agency transitioned to a mixture of virtual and in-person
investigations and assessments depending on various screening factors, and 19 states said
they continued in-person CPS responses. The remaining states did not comment on CPS
response processes. Many agencies that conducted some or all in-person responses said that
they provided workers with personal protective equipment and conducted prescreening for
COVID symptoms.
2 Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 virus.

3 https://www.edweek.org/leadership/map-coronavirus-and-school-closures-in-2019-2020/2020/03
Child Maltreatment 2020 Child Abuse and Neglect Data During the Pandemic iv
Contents
Letter from the AssociAte commissioner ii
AcknowLedgements iii
chiLd Abuse And negLect dAtA during the PAndemic iv
summAry ix
chAPter 1: Introduction 1
Background of NCANDS 1
Annual Data Collection Process 2
NCANDS as a Resource 3
Structure of the Report 4
chAPter 2: Reports 6
Screening 6
Report Sources 9
CPS Response Time 10
CPS Workforce and Caseload 10
Exhibit and Table Notes 11
chAPter 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 20
Number of Child Victims 20
Child Victim Demographics 21
Maltreatment Types 22
Focus on Maltreatment Categories 23
Victims of Sex Trafficking by Sex and Age 23
Infants With Prenatal Substance Exposure 23
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 25
Screened-in Infants With Prenatal Substance Exposure Who Have a Referral
to Appropriate Services 25
Risk Factors 26
Perpetrator Relationship 27
Child Maltreatment 2020 Contents v

chAPter 4: Fatalities 54
Number of Child Fatalities 54
Child Fatality Demographics 55
Maltreatment Types 57
Risk Factors 57
Prior CPS Contact 58
chAPter 5: Perpetrators 66
Number of Perpetrators 66
Perpetrator Demographics 66
chAPter 6: Services 77
Prevention Services 77
Postresponse Services 79
History of Receiving Services 80
Part C of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) 81
chAPter 7: Special Focus 94

Executive Summary 94
Screened-in Referrals 95
Report Sources 96
Children Who Received an Investigation Response or Alternative Response 97
Child Victims 98
Child Victim Demographics 99
Children Who Received Postresponse Services 100
APPendix A: CAPTA Data Items 117
APPendix b: Glossary 119
APPendix c: State Characteristics 137
APPendix d: State Commentary 145
Child Maltreatment 2020 Contents vi

Exhibits
Exhibit S–1 Summary of Child Maltreatment Rates per 1,000 Children, 2016–2020 xiv
Exhibit S–2 Statistics at a Glance, 2020 xv
Exhibit 2–A Screened-in Referral Rates, 2016–2020 7
Exhibit 2–B Screened-out Referral Rates, 2016–2020 7
Exhibit 2–C Total Referral Rates, 2016–2020 8
Exhibit 2–D Number of Referrals, 2016–2020 8
Exhibit 2–E Report Sources, 2020 9
Exhibit 3–A Child Disposition Rates, 2016–2020 19
Exhibit 3–B Children Who Received an Investigation or Alternative Response by
Disposition, 2020 20
Exhibit 3–C Child Victimization Rates, 2016–2020 21
Exhibit 3–D Victims by Age, 2020 22
Exhibit 4–A Child Fatality Rates per 100,000 Children, 2016–2020 55
Exhibit 4–B Child Fatalities by Age, 2020 56
Exhibit 4–C Child Fatalities by Sex, 2020 56
Exhibit 4–D Child Fatalities by Race and Ethnicity, 2020 57
Exhibit 4–E Maltreatment Types of Child Fatalities, 2020 57
Exhibit 4–F Child Fatalities with Selected Caregiver Risk Factors, 2020 58
Exhibit 5–A Perpetrators by Age, 2020 66
Exhibit 5–B Perpetrators by Race or Ethnicity, 2020 67
Exhibit 7–A Screened-in Referrals by Quarters, 2019–2020 95
Exhibit 7–B Selected Report Sources by Quarters, 2019–2020 97
Exhibit 7–C Number of Children Who Received an Investigation Response or
Alternative Response by Quarters, 2019–2020 98
Exhibit 7–D Number of Victims by Quarters, 2019–2020 99
Exhibit 7–E Age Groups of Victims by Quarters, 2019–2020 100
Tables
Table 2–1 Screened-in and Screened-out Referrals, 2020 13
Table 2–2 Average Response Time in Hours, 2016–2020 14
Table 2–3 Child Protective Services Workforce, 2020 15
Table 2–4 Child Protective Services Caseload, 2020 16
Table 3–1 Children Who Received an Investigation or Alternative Response, 2016–2020 31
Table 3–2 Children Who Received an Investigation or Alternative Response by
Disposition, 2020 33
Table 3–3 Child Victims, 2016–2020 35
Table 3–4 First-time Victims, 2020 37
Table 3–5 Victims by Age, 2020 38
Table 3–6 Victims by Sex, 2020 42
Table 3–7 Victims by Race or Ethnicity, 2020 43
Table 3–8 Maltreatment Types of Victims (Categories), 2020 45
Table 3–9 Victims of Sex Trafficking by Sex and Age, 2020 47
Table 3–10 Infants With Prenatal Substance Exposure by Submission Type, 2020 48
Table 3–11 Screened-in Infants With Prenatal Substance Exposure Who Have a Plan
of Safe Care, 2020 49
Table 3–12 Screened-in Infants With Prenatal Substance Exposure Who Have a
Referral to Appropriate Services 50
Child Maltreatment 2020 Contents vii

Table 3–13 Victims With Caregiver Risk Factors, 2016–2020 51
Table 3–14 Victims by Relationship to Their Perpetrators, 2020 53
Table 4–1 Child Fatalities by Submission Type, 2020 61
Table 4–2 Child Fatalities, 2016–2020 62
Table 4–3 Child Fatalities by Age, 2020 63
Table 4–4 Child Fatalities by Relationship to Their Perpetrators, 2020 63
Table 4–5 Child Fatalities Who Received Family Preservation Services Within the
Previous 5 Years, 2020 64
Table 4–6 Child Fatalities Who Were Reunited With Their Families Within the
Previous 5 Years, 2020 65
Table 5–1 Perpetrators, 2016–2020 69
Table 5–2 Perpetrators by Age, 2020 70
Table 5–3 Perpetrators by Sex, 2020 72
Table 5–4 Perpetrators by Race or Ethnicity, 2020 73
Table 5–5 Perpetrators by Relationship to Their Victims, 2020 75
Table 6–1 Children Who Received Prevention Services by Funding Source, 2020 84
Table 6–2 Children Who Received Postresponse Services, 2020 87
Table 6–3 Average and Median Number of Days to Initiation of Services, 2020 88
Table 6–4 Children Who Received Foster Care Postresponse Services and Who had a
Removal Date on or After the Report Date, 2020 89
Table 6–5 Victims With Court-Appointed Representatives, 2020 90
Table 6–6 Victims Who Received Family Preservation Services Within the Previous
5 Years, 2020 91
Table 6–7 Victims Who Were Reunited with Their Families Within the Previous
5 Years, 2020 92
Table 6–8 IDEA: Victims Who Were Eligible and Victims Who Were Referred to
Part C Agencies, 2020 93
Table 7–1 Screened-in Referrals by Quarters, 2019–2020 103
Table 7–2 Report Sources by Quarters, 2019–2020 106
Quarters, 2019–2020 107
Table 7–4 Child Victims by Quarters, 2019–2020 110
Table 7–5 Single Year Age of Victims by Quarters, 2019–2020 113
Table 7–6 Victims by Race and Ethnicity by Quarters, 2019–2020 115
Table 7–7 Children Who Received Postresponse Services, 2018–2020 115
Table C–1 State Administrative Structure, Level of Evidence, and Data Files
Submitted, 2020 139
Table C–2 Child Population, 2016–2020 140
Table C–3 Child Population Demographics, 2020 141
Table C–4 Adult Population by Age Group, 2020 144
Child Maltreatment 2020 Contents viii

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
suspected maltreatment to a child protective services (CPS) agency.
Each state has its own definitions 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 define 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 definition 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 Trafficking Act (P.L. 114–22) added the requirement to
include sex trafficking victims in the definition 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. Definitions
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 analysis
program. The data are collected and analyzed by the Children’s Bureau in the
Administration on Children, Youth and Families, the Administration for Children and
Families (ACF) within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
The data are submitted voluntarily by the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The first report from NCANDS was based on data for
1990. This report for federal fiscal year (FFY) data is the 31st issuance of this annual
publication. (See chapter 1.)
Child Maltreatment 2020 Summary ix

How are the data used?
NCANDS data are used for the Child Maltreatment report series. In addition, the data
are a critical source of information for many publications, reports, and activities of the
federal government and other groups. For example, NCANDS data are 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. (See chapter 1.)
What data are collected?

Once an allegation (called a referral) of abuse and 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 determines if a child was maltreated
or is at-risk of maltreatment and establishes 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) include 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 they suffered, the dispositions of the
CPS responses, the risk factors of the child and the caregivers, the services that are
provided, and the perpetrators. NCANDS collects agency-level aggregate statistics in a
separate data submission called the Agency File. (See chapter 1.)
Where are the data available?

The Child Maltreatment reports 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 [email protected] or 1–800–394–3366. Restricted use
files of NCANDS data 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 data for statistical analyses may contact NDACAN by
phone at 607–255–7799 or by email at [email protected]. (See chapter 1.)
How many allegations of maltreatment are reported and screened

in for an investigation response or alternative response?
For 2020, CPS agencies received a national estimate of 3.9 million (3,925,000)
total referrals. The 3.9 million total referrals alleging maltreatment includes
approximately 7.1 million (7,100,000) children. The national rate of screened-in
referrals (reports) is 28.9 per 1,000 children in the national population. Among the
47 states that report both screened-in and screened-out referrals, 54.2 percent of
referrals are screened in and 45.8 percent are screened out. (See chapter 2.)
Child Maltreatment 2020 Summary x

Who reported child maltreatment?
For 2020, professionals submitted 66.7 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
officers, lawyers, and social services staff. The highest percentages of reports are
from legal and law enforcement personnel (20.9%), education personnel (17.2%), and
medical personnel (11.6%).
Nonprofessionals, including friends, neighbors, and relatives, submitted fewer than

one-fifth of reports (17.0%). Unclassified sources submitted the remaining reports
(16.3%). Unclassified 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.)
Who were the child victims?

For FFY 2020, there are nationally 618,000 (rounded) victims of child abuse and
neglect. The victim rate is 8.4 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 25.1 per 1,000 children of the same age in the national
population.
The victimization rate for girls is 8.9 per 1,000 girls in the population, which is higher
than boys at 7.9 per 1,000 boys in the population. American-Indian or Alaska Native
children have the highest rate of victimization at 15.5 per 1,000 children in the popu-
lation of the same race or ethnicity; and African-American children have the second
highest rate at 13.2 per 1,000 children of the same race or ethnicity.
What were 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. This
means the totals may equal more than 100 percent.
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 2020, 76.1 percent of
victims are neglected, 16.5 percent are physically abused, 9.4 percent are sexually
abused and 0.2 percent are sex trafficked. (See chapter 3.)
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.
Child Maltreatment 2020 Summary xi

FFY 2020 data show 42,821 infants in 49 states being referred to CPS agencies
as infants with prenatal substance exposure. The majority (81.9%) of IPSE were
screened-in to CPS to receive either an investigation or alternative response. Nearly
one-fifth (18.1%) of IPSE were screened-out.
For FFY 2020, 27 states reported 21,964 screened-in IPSE (71.4 percent) have a
plan of safe care and 28 states reported 20,648 screened-in IPSE (65.0%) have a
referral to appropriate services. (See chapter 3.)
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.
The largest percentages of victims with caregiver risk factors are those reported with
domestic violence and drug abuse. In 41 reporting states, 121,215 victims (26.4%)
have the drug abuse caregiver risk factor and in 37 reporting states, 125,538 victims
(28.7%) have the domestic violence caregiver factor. (See chapter 3.)
How many children died from abuse or neglect?

Child fatalities are the most tragic consequence of maltreatment. For FFY 2020, a
national estimate of 1,750 children died from abuse and neglect at a rate of 2.38 per
100,000 children in the population. (See chapter 4.) The child fatality demographics
show:
■ The youngest children are the most vulnerable to maltreatment, with
46.4 percent of child fatalities younger than 1 year old and who died at a rate of
23.03 per 100,000 children in the population of the same age.
■ Boys have a higher child fatality rate at 2.99 per 100,000 boys in the population
when compared with girls at 2.05 per 100,000 girls in the population.
■ The rate of African-American child fatalities (5.90 per 100,000 African-American
children) is 3.1 times greater than the rate of White children (1.90 per 100,000
White children) and 3.6 times greater than the rate of Hispanic children
(1.65 per 100,000 Hispanic children).
Who abused and neglected children?

A perpetrator is the person who is responsible for the abuse or neglect of a child.
Fifty-two states reported 483,285 perpetrators. (See chapter 5.) The analyses of
case-level data show:
■ More than four-fifths (83.2%) of perpetrators are between the ages of 18 and
44 years old.
■ More than one-half (52.0%) of perpetrators are female and 47.1 percent of perpe-
trators are male.

■ The three largest percentages of perpetrators are White (48.4%), African-American
(20.8%), and Hispanic (20.1%).

■ The majority (77.2%) of perpetrators are a parent to their victim.
Child Maltreatment 2020 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.) During 2020:
■ Forty-six states reported approximately 2.0 million (1,963,369) children received
prevention services.
■ Approximately 1.2 million (1,159,294) children received postresponse services from
a CPS agency.
■ Approximately two-thirds (59.7%) of victims and one third (27.1%) of nonvictims
received post-response services.
What is the Special Focus chapter?

The purpose of this chapter is to highlight analyses of specific subsets of children or
data analyses focusing on a specific topic. These analyses may otherwise have been
spread throughout the report in different chapters, which can make it more difficult
for readers to see the whole analytical picture. The analyses included in this chapter
for FFY 2020 focus on quarterly analyses of child welfare data during the COVID-19
pandemic by comparing FFY 2020 quarterly data (October 2019 through September
2020) with the same quarters from FFY 2019 (October 2018 through September
2019). Additionally, states were asked to provide comments about how their child
welfare agencies continued operations during the year, especially during the period
from March through June 2020. (See chapter 7 and Appendix D.) Key highlights
include:
■ FFY 2020 shows a total decrease of 10.5 percent in the number of total screened-
in referrals compared with FFY 2019. While there is an overall decrease, analyzing
the data by quarters shows both increases and decreases, depending upon the
quarter.
■ FFY 2020 shows an overall decrease of 11.0 percent in the number of total report
sources when compared with FFY 2019. The largest changes are in the profes-
sional report sources, which decreased 13.2 percent from FFY 2019.
■ Overall, for FFY 2020, the number of children who received an investigation or
alternative response decreased 9.5 percent from FFY 2019. The largest decreases
occurred during April through September 2020.
■ For FFY 2020 there is a 5.8 percent decrease in the number of victims when
compared with FFY 2019. The decrease occurred during the second half of the
fiscal year. Throughout FFY 2019 the number of children determined to be
victims of maltreatment is stable for each quarter. During FFY 2020, the number
decreases starting in April through September.
■ Grouping the victims by approximate education categories (preschool/kindergar-
ten, elementary, etc.) shows that victims in the age group of 6–12 have the largest
percent decrease at 8.2 percent.
■ The racial distributions show that for nearly all race categories, there is a decrease
during the last 6 months of FFY 2020. However, victims of American Indian or
Alaska Native descent had an increase of 1.4 percent for the fiscal year.
Child Maltreatment 2020 Summary xiii

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, 2016–2020
Child Maltreatment 2020 Summary xiv

Exhibit S–2 Statistics at a Glance, 2020
3,925,000 million* REFERRALS alleging maltreatment

to CPS involving 7,065,000 children1
Referrals
54.2% Referrals SCREENED IN2

(become reports) 45.8% Referrals SCREENED OUT2
Reports
Submitted by
2,120,000 million REPORTS 66.7% professionals
17.0% nonprofessionals
received a disposition
16.3% unclassified
3,145,000 million^ CHILDREN received

either an investigation or alternative response
Children
618,000 ^ VICTIMS 2,527,000 ^ NONVICTIMS3,4

Includes 1,750 Fatalities*
357,057 VICTIMS5 802,237 NONVICTIMS4,5

received postresponse services received postresponse services
Services
124,360 VICTIMS6 48,719 NONVICTIMS4,6

received foster care services received foster care services
(on or after the report date) (on or after the report date)
* Indicates a nationally estimated number. ^ indicates a rounded number. Please refer to the
relevant chapter notes for information about thresholds, exclusions, and how the estimates are
calculated.
1 The average number of children included in a referral was (1.8 rounded).
2 For the states that reported both screened-in and screened-out referrals.
3 The estimated number of unique nonvictims was calculated by subtracting the unique count of
victims from the unique count of children.

4 Includes children who received an alternative response.
5 Based on data from 51 states. These are duplicate counts.
6 Based on data from 49 states. These are duplicate counts.
Child Maltreatment 2020 Summary xv

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, 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 2020 presents national data about child abuse and neglect known to
child protective services (CPS) agencies in the United States during federal fiscal year (FFY)
2020. The data are collected and analyzed through the National Child Abuse and Neglect
Data System (NCANDS), which is an initiative of the Children’s Bureau. Because NCANDS
contains all screened-in referrals to CPS agencies that receive a disposition and those that
receive an alternative response for FFY 2020.
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 first NCANDS report based on data from 1990. The Child Maltreatment
report series evolved from that initial report and is now in its 31st edition. During 1996,
CAPTA was amended to require all states that receive funds from the Basic State Grant
Child Maltreatment 2020 chAPter 1: Introduction 1

program to work with the Secretary of HHS to provide specific data, to the maximum extent
practicable, about children who had been maltreated. Subsequent CAPTA amendments added
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, listserv discussions, 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 these data useful for policy decision-makers, child welfare researchers,
and practitioners. The NCANDS Technical Team developed a general data standardization
(mapping) procedure whereby all states systematically define 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
2020 is October 1, 2019, through September 30, 2020. States submit case-level data by
constructing an electronic file of child-specific records for each report of alleged child abuse
and neglect that received a CPS response. Each state’s file only includes completed reports
with a disposition (or finding) 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

sub-mission called the Agency File. The Agency File contains data that are not reportable
at the child-specific 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
consistency and identifies probable causes for any missing data. If the reviews conclude that
corrections 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 informa-
tion from states about their data.)
For FFY 2020, 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. With each Child
Maltreatment report, the most recent population data from the U.S. Census Bureau are used to
update all data years in each trend table.4 As population data are not yet available from the 2020
Census, Child Maltreatment 2020 was created using updated 2020 population estimates based
on the 2010 Census. Wherever possible, trend tables encompass 5 years of data. According to
the U.S. Census Bureau, the population of the 52 states that submitted FFY 2020 data accounts
for more than 73 million children. (See table C–2.) As part of the NCANDS annual data collec-
tion process, states are asked to verify that their data are sufficiently encrypted.
NCANDS as a Resource
The NCANDS data are 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 3, NCANDS data are the basis for two of the
CFSR national data indicators, Recurrence of Maltreatment and Maltreatment in Foster
Care. NCANDS data also are used for data quality checks and context data.
The NCANDS data also are used for several performance measures published annually as
part of the ACF Annual Budget Request to Congress, which highlights certain key perfor-
mance measures. Specific measures on which ACF reports using NCANDS data include:
■ Decrease the rate of first-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.
4 U.S. Census Bureau, Population division. (2021). 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, 2010 to July 1, 2019; April 1, 2020; and
July 1, 2020 (SC-EST2020-ALLDATA6) [data file]. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest/
technical-documentation/research/evaluation-estimates/2020-evaluation-estimates/2010s-state-detail.html. Annual
Estimates of the Resident Population by Single Year of Age and Sex for the Puerto Rico Commonwealth: April 1, 2010 to
July 1, 2019; April 1 2020; and July 1, 2020 (PRC-EST2020-SYASEX) [data file]. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/
programs-surveys/popest/technical-documentation/research/evaluation-estimates/2020-evaluation-estimates/2010s-
detail-puerto-rico.html.

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
disseminates the data sets to qualified 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 confidentiality protection procedures. More information
on confidentiality protection is available in the NDACAN User’s Guide for NCANDS data at
https://www.ndacan.acf.hhs.gov/datasets/datasets-list-ncands-child-file.cfm. There is a user
guide provided with each dataset. Please note that NDACAN serves as the repository for the
data sets, but 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 are provided to other agencies as part of federal initiatives,
including 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 with 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
[email protected]. The Child Maltreatment 2020 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 specific subsets of children or data analyses
focusing on a specific 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
definitions.
■ Appendix C, State Characteristics—child and adult population data and information
about states administrative structures, levels of evidence, and data files submitted to
NCANDS.
■ Appendix D, State Commentary—information about state policies, procedures, and
legislation that may affect data.
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 defines 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 and email information for each NCANDS state contact person. Readers who
would like additional information about specific policies or practices should contact the
respective states.

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 notification, 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. The child protective services (CPS) data for federal fiscal year (FFY) 2020 shows a
national decrease in the number of referrals when compared with 2019. While the analyses in
this chapter remain mostly the same as in previous years, chapter 7 includes tables comparing
2020 to 2019 data by quarters for key analyses to examine differences in CPS data during
the COVID-19 pandemic. See Chapter 7, Special Focus for analyses of CPS data during the
COVID-19 pandemic.
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.5
During FFY 2020, CPS agencies across the nation screened in 2.1 million (2,120,316)
referrals in the 52 reporting states. This is an 8.9 percent decrease from the 2.3 million
(2,328,000) estimated screened-in referrals during 2016. (See exhibit 2–A and related notes.)
Child Maltreatment 2020 chAPter 2: Reports 6

Exhibit 2–A Screened-in Referral Rates, 2016–2020
Screened-in Referrals National Estimate/
Child Population of (Reports) from Rate per 1,000 Child Population Rounded Number of
Year Reporting States Reporting States Reporting States) Children of 52 States Screened-in Referrals
2016 51 73,699,293 2,303,225 31.3 74,392,850 2,328,000
2017 52 74,283,872 2,356,356 31.7 74,283,872 2,356,000
2018 52 73,977,376 2,402,884 32.5 73,977,376 2,403,000
2019 52 73,661,476 2,368,755 32.2 73,661,476 2,369,000
2020 52 73,368,194 2,120,316 28.9 73,368,194 2,120,000
Screened-in referral data are from the Child File. The 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 and multiplying the result by 1,000.
If fewer than 52 states report screened-in referrals (2016 only) then the national estimate/rounded number of screened-in referrals is a calculation
from the rate of screened-in referrals multiplied by the national population of all 52 states. The result is divided by 1,000 and rounded to the nearest
1,000. If 52 states report screened-in referrals, the national estimate/rounded number of screened-in referrals is the actual number of referrals
reported rounded to the nearest 1,000.
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.) 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 alterna-
tive responses result in a CPS finding called a disposition.
For 2020, a national estimate of 1.8 million (1,805,000) referrals were screened out. This is
a 5.1 percent increase from the 1.7 million (1,718,000) estimated screened-out referrals for
2016. (See exhibit 2–B and related notes.)
Exhibit 2–B Screened-out Referral Rates, 2016–2020

Child Population of Rate per 1,000 Child Population National Estimate of
Year Reporting States Reporting States Screened-out Referrals Children of 52 States Screened-out Referrals
2016 45 59,496,024 1,374,053 23.1 74,392,850 1,718,000
2017 45 59,511,053 1,421,252 23.9 74,283,872 1,775,000
2018 46 59,955,457 1,565,553 26.1 73,977,376 1,931,000
2019 45 59,518,850 1,625,691 27.3 73,661,476 2,011,000
2020 47 61,864,951 1,522,916 24.6 73,368,194 1,805,000
Screened-out referral data are from the Agency File. The 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 and multiplying the result by 1,000.
The national estimate of screened-out referrals is based upon the rate of referrals multiplied by the national population of all 52 states. The result is
divided by 1,000 and rounded to the nearest 1,000.
5 Victims of sex trafficking 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 trafficking.

For 2020, CPS agencies received a national estimate of 3.9 million (3,925,000) total refer-
rals. This is a 3.0 percent decrease from the 4.0 million (4,046,000) estimated total referrals
received for 2016. The 3.9 million total referrals alleging maltreatment includes approxi-
mately 7.1 million (7,065,000) children.6,7 (See exhibit 2–C and related notes).
Exhibit 2–C Total Referral Rates, 2016–2020

National Estimate/
Screened-in Referrals National Estimate of National Estimate of Child Population of Total Referrals Rate per
Year from Reporting States Screened-out Referrals Total Referrals all 52 States 1,000 Children
2016 2,328,000 1,718,000 4,046,000 74,392,850 54.4
2017 2,356,356 1,775,000 4,131,000 74,283,872 55.6
2018 2,402,884 1,931,000 4,334,000 73,977,376 58.6
2019 2,368,755 2,011,000 4,380,000 73,661,476 59.5
2020 2,120,316 1,805,000 3,925,000 73,368,194 53.5
Screened-in referral data are from the Child File and screened-out referral data are from the Agency File.
The national estimate of total referrals is the sum of the actual reported or estimated number of screened-in referrals (from exhibit 2–A) plus the
number of estimated screened-out referrals (from exhibit 2–B). The sum is rounded to the nearest 1,000. The national total referral rate is calculated
for each year by dividing the national estimate of total referrals by the child population of 52 states and multiplying the result by 1,000.
As shown in exhibits 2–C and 2–D, the number of total referrals received by CPS agencies
increased until 2020. After several years of increasing, the number of screened-in referrals
began decreasing in 2019, while the number of screened-out referrals increased until 2020.
Exhibit 2-D Number of Referrals 2016-2020

After increasing for several years, the number of total referrals decreased for 2020
Based on data from 52 states. See exhibits 2–A, 2–B, and 2–C.
6 Dividing the number of children with dispositions (3,798,038 from table 3–2) by the number of screened-in referrals
(2,120,316 from table 2–1) results in the average number of children included in a screened-in referral (1.8, rounded).
7 The average number of children included in a screened-in referral (1.8) multiplied by the national estimate of total
referrals (3,925,000, from exhibit 2–C) results in an estimated 7,065,000 children included in total referrals.

For 2020, 47 states report both screened-in and screened-out referral data and screened in
54.2 percent and screened out 45.8 percent of referrals. Of those 47 states, 19 states screened
in more than the national percentage, ranging from 54.4 to 98.7 percent and 28 states
screened out more than the national percentage, ranging from 47.8 to 82.7 percent. (See
table 2–1 and related notes.)
While most states reported a decrease in the number of total referrals received, two states
began reporting screened-out referrals with their 2020 data.8 See Chapter 7 for analyses on
screened-in referrals during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Report Sources
The report source is the role of the person who notified 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.
Exhibit 2–E Report Sources, 2020

Professionals submitted the majority of screened-in referrals (reports) that received an investigation or alternative response
Data are from the Child File. Based on data from 49 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.
8 Montana and North Carolina.

■ Unclassified: 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 official 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 2020 data show professionals submit 66.7 percent of reports. The highest percentages of
reports are from legal and law enforcement personnel (20.9%), education personnel (17.2%),
and medical personnel (11.6%). Nonprofessionals submit 17.0 percent of reports with the largest
category of nonprofessional reporters being parents (6.3%), other relatives (6.3%), and friends
and neighbors (4.0%). Unclassified sources submit the remaining 16.3 percent. (See exhibit 2–E
and related notes.) As expected with school closures and virtual learning, the number and
percentage of education personnel report sources decreased for 2020 when compared with
2019. See Chapter 7 for analyses on report sources during the COVID-19 pandemic.
CPS Response Time

States’ policies usually establish time guidelines or requirements for initiating a CPS
response. The definition 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 38 states, the FFY 2020 mean response time of state averages is 99
hours or 4.0 days; the median response time of state averages is 62 hours or 2.6 days. (See
table 2–2 and related notes.) Most states reported a decrease in average response times,
which may be attributed to the decrease in the number of screened-in referrals. Many
states also allowed CPS agencies to conduct virtual investigations and assessments and this
practice may have contributed to the decrease in response times. 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, difficulties 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.
9 Virginia and Wisconsin.

For FFY 2020, 44 states reported a total workforce of 31,215 and 41 states reported 4,798
specialized intake and screening workers. This is an increase from FFY 2019 when 42 states
reported 29,405 total workers and 39 states reported 3,188 intake and screening workers.
Two states began reporting these data in 2020.9 The number of investigation and alternative
response workers—20,450—is computed by subtracting the reported number of intake and
screening workers from the total workforce number. (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 complete an average of 67 CPS responses per
worker for FFY 2020. (See table 2–4 and related notes.) This is a decrease from the average of
71 responses per worker for FFY 2019.
Exhibit and Table Notes

The following pages contain the data tables referenced in chapter 2. Specific 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.
■ Rates are per 1,000 children in the population.
■ Rates are calculated by dividing the relevant reported count (screened-in referrals, total refer-
rals, 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, 2020

■ Screened-out referral data are from the Agency File and screened-in referral data are 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, 2016–2020

■ Data are 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 finding the midpoint.
■ Some states report the average response time generated from the NCANDS Child File as

their average response time in the Agency File. If a state does use the Child File calculated
average, the following thresholds apply and the state would be excluded from this analysis
if any of the following conditions are present: if fewer than 95.0 percent of reports have
a report time, fewer than 80.0 percent of reports have an investigation start date, fewer
than 75.0 percent of reports have an investigation start time or fewer than 50.0 percent of
unique reports with investigation start date have different investigation start and report
dates/times.
Table 2–3 Child Protective Services Workforce, 2020

■ Some states provide the total number of CPS workers, but not the specifics on worker func-
tions as classified by NCANDS.

■ States are excluded if the worker data are not full-time equivalents.
Table 2–4 Child Protective Services Caseload, 2020

■ Data are 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.
■ 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 are not full-time equivalents.
■ States are excluded if they do not report intake and screening workers separately from all
workers.

Table 2–1 Screened-in and Screened-out Referrals, 2020
Screened-in
Screened-in Screened-out Referrals (Reports) Screened-out Total Referrals Rate
State Referrals (Reports) Referrals Total Referrals Percent Referrals Percent per 1,000 Children
Alabama 26,667 352 27,019 98.7 1.3 24.9
Alaska 11,433 11,254 22,687 50.4 49.6 126.9
Arizona 41,986 34,348 76,334 55.0 45.0 46.4
Arkansas 31,429 22,922 54,351 57.8 42.2 77.7
California 199,749 159,950 359,699 55.5 44.5 40.9
Colorado 33,453 64,620 98,073 34.1 65.9 78.5
Connecticut 11,030 32,756 43,786 25.2 74.8 60.9
Delaware 4,845 13,395 18,240 26.6 73.4 89.1
District of Columbia 4,283 8,514 12,797 33.5 66.5 98.8
Florida 140,639 89,959 230,598 61.0 39.0 54.2
Georgia 62,675 47,552 110,227 56.9 43.1 44.1
Hawaii 2,716 2,641 5,357 50.7 49.3 18.1
Idaho 9,454 11,935 21,389 44.2 55.8 47.4
Illinois 79,944 - 79,944 100.0 - -
Indiana 111,868 53,837 165,705 67.5 32.5 105.8
Iowa 30,684 16,941 47,625 64.4 35.6 65.6
Kansas 28,343 19,870 48,213 58.8 41.2 69.2
Kentucky 46,270 49,108 95,378 48.5 51.5 95.2
Louisiana 17,232 29,078 46,310 37.2 62.8 42.8
Maine 11,292 11,591 22,883 49.3 50.7 92.2
Maryland 19,997 38,152 58,149 34.4 65.6 43.6
Massachusetts 37,505 34,313 71,818 52.2 47.8 53.5
Michigan 72,953 67,795 140,748 51.8 48.2 66.2
Minnesota 28,329 52,238 80,567 35.2 64.8 61.9
Mississippi 24,405 7,595 32,000 76.3 23.7 46.2
Missouri 55,303 27,866 83,169 66.5 33.5 60.6
Montana 10,120 4,266 14,386 70.3 29.7 62.6
Nebraska 13,194 20,695 33,889 38.9 61.1 71.3
Nevada 14,739 23,234 37,973 38.8 61.2 54.4
New Hampshire 10,816 8,009 18,825 57.5 42.5 74.4
New Jersey 52,853 - 52,853 100.0 - -
New Mexico 22,128 18,253 40,381 54.8 45.2 85.5
New York 145,129 - 145,129 100.0 0.0 0.0
North Carolina 60,268 3,705 63,973 94.2 5.8 27.7
North Dakota 3,231 - 3,231 100.0 0.0 0.0
Ohio 81,183 100,853 182,036 44.6 55.4 70.9
Oklahoma 37,398 38,911 76,309 49.0 51.0 80.0
Oregon 35,461 36,095 71,556 49.6 50.4 83.1
Pennsylvania 35,865 - 35,865 100.0 - -
Puerto Rico 6,999 8,238 15,237 45.9 54.1 27.9
Rhode Island 5,966 9,850 15,816 37.7 62.3 78.4
South Carolina 34,078 19,436 53,514 63.7 36.3 47.9
South Dakota 2,449 11,682 14,131 17.3 82.7 64.7
Tennessee 68,813 57,625 126,438 54.4 45.6 83.5
Texas 186,660 46,002 232,662 80.2 19.8 31.3
Utah 19,997 19,501 39,498 50.6 49.4 42.5
Vermont 2,730 12,848 15,578 17.5 82.5 137.7
Virginia 33,216 48,651 81,867 40.6 59.4 43.9
Washington 41,795 60,847 102,642 40.7 59.3 61.6
West Virginia 24,104 13,591 37,695 63.9 36.1 105.8
Wisconsin 24,159 47,905 72,064 33.5 66.5 57.3
Wyoming 2,481 4,137 6,618 37.5 62.5 49.7
National 2,120,316 1,522,916 3,643,232 - - -
Reporting States 52 47 52 - - -
National for states reporting
both screened-in and
screened-out referrals 1,803,294 1,522,916 3,326,210 54.2 45.8 N/A
Reporting states for
reporting both screened-in
and screened-out referrals 47 47 47 - - -

2–2 Average Response Time in Hours, 2016–2020
State 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Alabama 64 58 53 51 48
Alaska - - 423 602 576
Arizona - 32 31 32 31
Arkansas 113 134 98 104 98
California - - - - -
Colorado - - 114 116 116
Connecticut 44 62 46 42 31
Delaware 231 291 354 409 296
District of Columbia 22 26 29 23 15
Florida 10 10 11 9 9
Georgia - - - - -
Hawaii 154 179 338 315 269
Idaho 56 64 60 64 62
Illinois - - - - -
Indiana 96 74 64 63 63
Iowa 54 49 52 63 55
Kansas 67 94 123 101 125
Kentucky 75 78 96 121 200
Louisiana 73 99 - - -
Maine 72 72 87 94 61
Maryland - - - - -
Massachusetts - - - - -
Michigan 41 33 34 43 42
Minnesota 108 104 79 72 84
Mississippi 51 50 31 34 30
Missouri 42 65 48 61 -
Montana 125 - - - -
Nebraska 126 145 136 123 121
Nevada 19 18 68 69 64
New Hampshire 104 116 129 113 92
New Jersey 17 18 18 19 18
New Mexico 68 67 63 89 73
New York - - - - -
North Carolina - - - - -
North Dakota - - - - -
Ohio 24 26 23 24 24
Oklahoma 51 50 51 48 50
Oregon 133 137 150 165 157
Pennsylvania - - - - -
Puerto Rico - - - - 141
Rhode Island 20 28 32 20 19
South Carolina - - 38 42 33
South Dakota 73 75 51 34 33
Tennessee 52 - - - -
Texas 63 55 50 50 50
Utah 86 88 82 76 82
Vermont 107 102 94 92 107
Virginia - - - - -
Washington 40 39 38 37 35
West Virginia 200 211 238 339 309
Wisconsin 119 117 119 113 111
Wyoming 24 14 18 23 15
National Average 76 80 94 102 99
National Median 67 66 62 64 62
Reporting States 37 36 38 38 38

Table 2–3 Child Protective Services Workforce, 2020
Investigation and Alternative Intake, Screening, Investigation,
State Intake and Screening Workers Response Workers and Alternative Response Workers
Alabama 85 492 577
Alaska 21 202 223
Arizona 88 469 557
Arkansas 42 440 482
California - - 2,872
Colorado - - -
Connecticut 56 334 390
Delaware 30 142 172
District of Columbia 35 158 193
Florida - - -
Georgia - - -
Hawaii 13 42 55
Idaho 14 148 162
Illinois 179 837 1,016
Indiana 124 776 900
Iowa 29 276 305
Kansas 79 306 385
Kentucky 80 1,043 1,123
Louisiana 45 198 243
Maine 35 157 192
Maryland - - -
Massachusetts 122 313 435
Michigan 151 1,498 1,649
Minnesota 462 517 979
Mississippi 21 446 467
Missouri 50 522 572
Montana 22 179 201
Nebraska 42 165 207
Nevada 59 160 219
New Hampshire 18 112 130
New Jersey 107 1,259 1,366
New Mexico 62 179 241
New York - - -
North Carolina 153 927 1,080
North Dakota - - -
Ohio - - -
Oklahoma 78 698 776
Oregon 93 364 457
Pennsylvania - - 2,935
Puerto Rico 34 298 332
Rhode Island 12 68 80
South Carolina - - -
South Dakota 16 46 62
Tennessee 78 951 1,029
Texas 522 3,866 4,388
Utah 30 122 152
Vermont 34 45 79
Virginia 110 571 681
Washington 110 543 653
West Virginia 40 332 372
Wisconsin 1,417 249 1,666
Wyoming - - 160
National 4,798 20,450 31,215
Reporting States 41 41 44

Table 2–4 Child Protective Services Caseload, 2020
Completed Reports per
Investigation and Alternative Completed Reports (Reports with a Investigation and Alternative
State Response Workers disposition) Response Worker
Alabama 492 26,667 54
Alaska 202 11,433 57
Arizona 469 41,986 90
Arkansas 440 31,429 71
California - - -
Colorado - - -
Connecticut 334 11,030 33
Delaware 142 4,845 34
District of Columbia 158 4,283 27
Florida - - -
Georgia - - -
Hawaii 42 2,716 65
Idaho 148 9,454 64
Illinois 837 79,944 96
Indiana 776 111,868 144
Iowa 276 30,684 111
Kansas 306 28,343 93
Kentucky 1,043 46,270 44
Louisiana 198 17,232 87
Maine 157 11,292 72
Maryland - - -
Massachusetts 313 37,505 120
Michigan 1,498 72,953 49
Minnesota 517 28,329 55
Mississippi 446 24,405 55
Missouri 522 55,303 106
Montana 179 10,120 57
Nebraska 165 13,194 80
Nevada 160 14,739 92
New Hampshire 112 10,816 97
New Jersey 1,259 52,853 42
New Mexico 179 22,128 124
New York - - -
North Carolina 927 60,268 65
North Dakota - - -
Ohio - - -
Oklahoma 698 37,398 54
Oregon 364 35,461 97
Pennsylvania - - -
Puerto Rico 298 6,999 23
Rhode Island 68 5,966 88
South Dakota 46 2,449 53
Tennessee 951 68,813 72
Texas 3,866 186,660 48
Utah 122 19,997 164
Vermont 45 2,730 61
Virginia 571 33,216 58
Washington 543 41,795 77
West Virginia 332 24,104 73
Wisconsin 249 24,159 97
Wyoming - - -
National 20,450 1,361,836 67
Reporting States 41 41 41

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
protective services (CPS) data for federal fiscal year (FFY) 2020 shows a national decrease
in children who were the subjects of a CPS response and those who were determined to be
maltreatment victims when compared with 2019. While the analyses in this chapter remain
mostly the same as in previous years, chapter 7 includes tables comparing 2020 to 2019 data by
quarters for key analyses to examine differences in CPS data during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA), (P.L. 100–294) defines child abuse
and neglect as, at a minimum:
Any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker which results in
death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation [ ]; or an act
or failure to act, which presents an imminent risk of serious harm.
The Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act (P.L. 114–22) added a legislation requirement to
include sex trafficking victims in the definition of child abuse and neglect. CAPTA recognizes
individual state authority by providing this minimum federal definition of child abuse and
neglect. Each state defines 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. (See chapter 1.)
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 sufficient
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
Child Maltreatment 2020 chAPter 3: Children 17
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.
■ Closed with no finding: A disposition that does not conclude with a specific finding
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 finding 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
substantiated or indicated. (See Appendix C, State Characteristics for each state’s level of
evidence.) These statutes influence 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
usually 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 defined 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 define 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 first 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.

Unique and Duplicate Counts
All NCANDS reporting states have the ability to assign a unique identifier, within the state,
to each child who receives a CPS response. These unique identifiers 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 first report where the child has a substantiated or indicated disposition.
Children Who Received an Investigation or Alternative Response

(unique count of children)
For FFY 2020, about 3,145,000 children (national rounded number) received either an investiga-
tion or alternative response at a rate of 42.9 children per 1,000 in the population. This is a 9.5
percent decrease in the number of children from FFY 2016 when approximately 3,474,000
children (national estimated number) received an investigation or alternative response at a rate
of 46.7 per 1,000 children.10 (See exhibit 3–A and related notes.)
Exhibit 3–A Child Disposition Rates, 2016–2020

National Estimate/
Children Who Received National Rounded Number of
an Investigation or Disposition Children Who Received
Child Population of Alternative Response Rate per 1,000 Child Population of all an Investigation or
Year Reporting States Reporting States from Reporting States Children 52 States Alternative Response
2016 51 73,699,293 3,441,462 46.7 74,392,850 3,474,000
2017 52 74,283,872 3,498,511 47.1 74,283,872 3,499,000
2018 52 73,977,376 3,533,768 47.8 73,977,376 3,534,000
2019 52 73,661,476 3,476,438 47.2 73,661,476 3,476,000
2020 52 73,368,194 3,144,644 42.9 73,368,194 3,145,000
The number of reported children who received an investigation or alternative response is a unique count. The 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.
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 by the child population of all 52 states and dividing by 1,000. The result is rounded to the
nearest 1,000. If 52 states report data in a given year, the number of estimated/rounded children who received an investigation or alternative
response is the actual number of reported children who received an investigation or alternative response rounded to the nearest 1,000.
At the state level, the percent change from FFY 2016 to FFY 2020 ranged from a 40.0 percent
decrease to a 62.5 increase. State explanations for changes in the number of children who
received a CPS response across the 5 years include backlog reduction (which may involve an
increase in one year followed by a decrease in the next year) changes to screening and
assessment policies, surges related to increased media coverage, and the reductions due
to the COVID-19 pandemic. Please see Appendix D, State Commentary, for state-specific
information about changes. Information about a change may be in an earlier edition of Child
Maltreatment. For analyses and state comments related to the COVID-19 pandemic please
see Chapter 7, Special Focus. (See table 3–1, and related notes.)
10 The national percent change was calculated using the national estimate of children who received a CPS response for 2016
and the national rounded number of children who received a CPS response for 2020.

Children Who Received an Investigation or Alternative Response
by Disposition (duplicate count of children)
For FFY 2020, approximately 3.8 (3,798,038) million 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. More than
17.0 percent of children are classified as victims with dispositions of substantiated (16.5%)
and indicated (1.1%).11 The remaining children are not determined to be victims or received
an alternative response. (See table 3–2, exhibit 3–B, and related notes.)
Exhibit 3–B Children Who Received an Investigation or Alternative

Response by Disposition, 2020
More than 17 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 defined 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 confirmed 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 2020, there are nationally 618,000 (rounded) victims of child abuse and neglect. This
equates to a national rate of 8.4 victims per 1,000 children in the population. The national
number of victims for 2020 is an 8.7 percent decrease from the 2016 national estimate of
677,000 victims.12 While the 2020 decrease may be due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the
number of victims has fluctuated during the past 5 years. (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 substanti-
ate an abuse allegation, all or some of which may account for variations in victimization rates.
Readers are encouraged to read Appendix C, State Characteristics and Appendix D, State
11 North Carolina recoded the dispositions of children who would have received alternative response victim to indicated.
12 The national percent change was calculated using the national estimate of victims for 2016 and the national rounded
number of victims for 2020.

Commentary for more information. Information about a change may be in an earlier edition
of Child Maltreatment. For analyses and state comments related to the COVID-19 pandemic
please see Chapter 7, Special Focus.
Exhibit 3–C Child Victimization Rates, 2016–2020

National
Victimization National Estimate/
Child Population of Victims from Reporting Rate per 1,000 Child Population of all Rounded Number of
Year Reporting States Reporting States States Children 52 States Victims
2016 51 73,699,293 671,176 9.1 74,392,850 677,000
2017 52 74,283,872 673,630 9.1 74,283,872 674,000
2018 52 73,977,376 677,411 9.2 73,977,376 677,000
2019 52 73,661,476 656,251 8.9 73,661,476 656,000
2020 52 73,368,194 618,399 8.4 73,368,194 618,000
The number of victims is a unique count. The national victimization rate is calculated by dividing the number of victims from reporting states by the
child population of reporting states and multiplying by 1,000.
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 by the child population of all 52 states and dividing by 1,000. The result is rounded to the nearest 1,000. If 52 states report data in
a given year, the number of rounded victims is calculated by taking the number of reported victims and rounding it to the nearest 1,000. The percent
change is calculated using the rounded numbers.
At the state level, the percent change of victims of abuse and neglect range from a 59.8
percent decrease to 214.0 percent increase from FFY 2016 to 2020. The FFY 2020 state
victimization rates range from a low of 1.7 to a high of 19.0 per 1,000 children. (See table 3–3
and related notes.) Changes to legislation, child welfare policy, and practice that may contrib-
ute to an increase or decrease in the number of victims are provided by states in Appendix D,
State Commentary. For example, across the 5 years: one state changed its level of evidence,
several states resolved investigation or assessment backlogs, and several states adopted new
intake or screening processes.13 Other factors include the increase in reports due to public
awareness after media coverage of child deaths, severe storms that changed or reduced the
population and the COVID-19 pandemic. Information about a change may be in an earlier
edition of Child Maltreatment. For analyses and state comments related to the COVID-19
pandemic please see Chapter 7, Special Focus.
Based on data from 51 states, the FFY 2020 rate of first-time victims is 5.9 per 1,000 children
in the population. This equates to 70.8 percent of all victims are first-time victims in the same
51 states. States use the disposition date of prior substantiated or indicated maltreatments to
determine whether the victim is a first-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 (28.6%)
of victims are in the age range of birth through 2 years old. Victims younger than 1 year are
15.2 percent of all victims. The victimization rate is highest for children younger than 1 year old
at 25.1 per 1,000 children in the population of the same age. This is more than double the rate
of victims who are 1 year old (11.2 per 1,000 children). Victims who are 2 or 3 years old have
victimization rates of 10.4 and 9.7 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.)
13 North Carolina recoded child dispositions of alternative response victim to indicated, which significantly increased the
state’s count of unique victims.

Exhibit 3–D Victims by Age, 2020
The youngest children are the most vulnerable to maltreatment
The percentages of child victims are similar for both boys (48.1%) and girls (51.6%). The sex is
unknown for 0.3 percent of victims. The FFY 2020 victimization rate for girls is 8.9 per 1,000
girls in the population, which is higher than boys at 7.9 per 1,000 boys in the population. (See
table 3–6 and related notes.) Most victims are one of three races or ethnicities—White (43.1%),
Hispanic (23.6%), or African-American (21.1%). The racial distributions for all children in the
population are 49.6 percent White, 25.6 percent Hispanic, and 13.7 percent African-American.14
(See table C–3 and related notes.) For FFY 2020, American-Indian or Alaska Native children
have the highest rate of victimization at 15.5 per 1,000 children in the population of the same
race or ethnicity and African-American children have the second highest rate at 13.2 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 Trafficking Act of 2015 includes an amendment to CAPTA under title
VIII—Better Response for Victims of Child Sex Trafficking by adding a requirement to report
the number of sex trafficking victims. NCANDS added sex trafficking as a new maltreatment
type, defined as.
■ Sex trafficking: 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 trafficking victim who is younger than 24 years.
States are instructed to include sex trafficking by caregivers and noncaregivers and began report-
ing these data with their FFY 2018 data submissions to NCANDS.15 Analyses of these data were
in chapter 7 in prior Child Maltreatment reports.
14 Does not include Puerto Rico due to lack of race and ethnicity data.
15 The Children’s Bureau Information Memoranda ACYF-CB-IM-15-05 dated July 16, 2015, informed states that these data
will be reported, to the extent practicable, to NCANDS. https://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb/policy-guidance/im-15-05

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.
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 2020 data show three-quarters (76.1%) of victims are neglected, 16.5 percent are
physically abused, 9.4 percent are sexually abused, and 0.2 percent are sex trafficked. In
addition, 6.0 percent of victims are reported with the “other” type of maltreatment. States
may code any maltreatment as “other” if it does not fit in one of the NCANDS categories.
According to states, the “other” maltreatment type includes threatened abuse or neglect,
drug/alcohol addiction, and lack of supervision. (See table 3–8 and related notes.) A few
states have policies about conducting investigations into specific 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.
Victims of Sex Trafficking by Sex and Age (unique count of child victims)
Analyzing victims of sex trafficking by demographics shows different patterns of abuse than
for victims of all maltreatment types analyzed together. As shown in table 3–6, the percent-
ages of victims regardless of maltreatment types are evenly split by sex. However, for victims
of the sex trafficking maltreatment type, the majority (88.6%) are female and 10.9 percent
are male. (See table 3–9 and related notes.) Different patterns also are seen by age, with older
rather than younger children being the most vulnerable to sex trafficking maltreatment. For
example, approximately three-quarters (74.8%) of victims of sex trafficking are in the age
range of 14–17 and 19.1 percent are in the age range of 9–13.
Infants With Prenatal Substance Exposure

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
(ISPE), the number of ISPE with a plan of safe care, and the number of ISPE with a referral
to appropriate services. States began reporting the new fields with their FFY 2018 NCANDS
submissions.16
16 The Children’s Bureau Program Instruction ACYF-CB-PI-17-02 dated January 17, 2017, informed states that these data
will be reported, to the extent practicable, to NCANDS https://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb/policy-guidance/pi-17-02.

Some challenges for determining whether an infant was exposed to alcohol and/or drugs
during pregnancy are that, “The rate of drug and alcohol excretion is affected by many
factors, including the amount of alcohol or other drug taken; the frequency of use; the user’s
[mother’s] daily liquid intake, health status, exercise, age, sex, body weight, and metabolic
rate; and the concurrent use of other drugs, including alcohol and/or nicotine.”17 A Fetal
Alcohol Spectrum Disorder diagnosis requires a medical evaluation and neurodevelopmental
assessment conducted by a multidisciplinary team.18
“Neurobehavioral outcomes depend on the dose and pattern of alcohol consumption and the
developmental stage when the fetus was exposed.”19
Reporting Infants With Prenatal Substance Exposure

Data to NCANDS20
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
following conditions as defined by NCANDS data elements:
(1) Infant: the child must be in the age range of birth to 1 year old.
(2) Referred to CPS by health care provider: the child must have the medical personnel
report source.
(3) Born with and identified 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 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 definitions 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 fields 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.
17 U.S. Department of Health & Human Services Administration for Children and Families, Administration on Children,
Youth and Families, National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect. (1994). Protecting Children in Substance-Abusing
Families. Available from https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/usermanuals/subabuse/
18 Cook, J. L., Green, C. R., Lilley, C. M., Anderson, S. M., Baldwin, M. E., Chudley, A. E., & Mallon, B. F. (2016). Fetal
alcohol spectrum disorder: A guideline for diagnosis across the lifespan. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 188(3),
191–197.
19 Mattson, S. N., Crocker, N., & Nguyen, T. T. (2011). Fetal alcohol spectrum disorders: neuropsychological and behavioral
features. Neuropsychology Review, 21(2), 81–101
20 CAPTA uses terms infants affected by substance abuse, prenatal drug exposure, and 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.

Number of Infants With Prenatal Substance Exposure
FFY 2020 data show 42,821 infants in 49 states being referred to CPS agencies as infants
with prenatal substance exposure. (See table 3–10 and related notes.) The majority (81.9%) of
IPSE were screened-in to CPS to receive either an investigation or alternative response. Of the
screened-in IPSE, 88.9 percent have the drug abuse child risk factor, 0.9 percent have the alco-
hol abuse child risk factor and 10.2 percent have the alcohol and drug abuse child risk factor.21
Nearly one-fifth (18.1%) of IPSE were screened-out. While 36 states reported data for
screened-out IPSE, some states said that no IPSE referrals were screened out for FFY 2020.
Some states have policies and legislation prohibiting all or certain referrals from being
screened out. See Appendix D, State Commentary for more information about states’ screen-
ing policies and additional information about states’ capabilities to collect and report data on
these IPSE children.
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). NCANDS
uses the following definition:
■ Plan of safe care: A plan developed as described in CAPTA sections 106(b)(2)(B)(iii) for
infants born and identified as being affected by substance abuse or withdrawal symptoms,
or Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder. The state plan requirement at 106(b)(2)(B)(iii)
requires that a plan of safe care address the health and substance use disorder treatment
needs of the infant and affected family or caregiver.
For FFY 2020, 27 states reported 21,964 screened-in IPSE (71.4%) have a plan of safe care.
(See table 3–11 and related notes.) This is an improvement in number of states reporting from
FFY 2019, when 21 states reported 17,505 screened-in IPSE (75.4%) had a plan of safe care.
Screened-in Infants With Prenatal Substance Exposure Who Have

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). NCANDS
uses the following definition:
■ Referral to appropriate services–This field indicates whether the infant with prenatal sub-
stance exposure has a referral to appropriate services, including services for the affected
family or caregiver. According to Administration for Children and Families, the definition
of “appropriate services” is determined by each state.
Twenty-eight states reported 20,648 screened-in IPSE (65.0%) have a referral to appropriate
services. (See table 3–12 and related notes.) This is an improvement in reporting from FFY
2019 when 20 states reported 15,037 screened-in IPSE (61.5%) had a referral to appropriate
care. What is considered an appropriate service is up to each state’s determination and may
depend on the needs of the specific case. According to comments provided by the states, some
21 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 2020 Chapter 3: Children 25

examples of services that these children and families were referred to include mental and
behavioral health, foster care, substance abuse assessment and treatment, and other programs
that facilitate early identification of at-risk children and caregivers and links them with early
intervention services, public health services, and community-based resources.
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 difficult 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 have 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 notified, 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 2020, data are analyzed for caregiver
risk factors with the following NCANDS definitions:
■ Alcohol abuse (caregiver): The compulsive use of alcohol that is not of a temporary nature.
■ Domestic Violence: Any abusive, violent, coercive, forceful, or threatening act or word
inflicted 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.
■ Financial Problem: A risk factor related to the family’s inability to provide sufficient
financial resources to meet minimum needs.

■ Inadequate Housing: A risk factor related to substandard, overcrowded, or unsafe housing
conditions, including homelessness.

■ 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.
■ Any Caregiver Disability: This category counts a victim with any of the six disability
caregiver risk factors—Intellectual Disability, Emotional Disturbance, Visual or Hearing

Impairment, Learning Disability, Physical Disability, and Other Medical Condition. Please
see Appendix B, Glossary for the NCANDS definitions. The victim is counted once for
each reported caregiver disability type.
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. The
largest percentages of victims with caregiver risk factors are those reported with domestic
violence and drug abuse. In 41 reporting states, 121,215 victims (26.4%) have the drug abuse
caregiver risk factor and in 37 reporting states, 125,538 victims (28.7%) have the domestic
violence caregiver factor. This is closely followed by 83,897 victims (23.5%) with the public
assistance caregiver risk factor. (See table 3–13 and related notes.)

Perpetrator Relationship (unique count of child victims and duplicate count of
relationships)
In this section, data are analyzed by relationship of victims to their perpetrators. A victim may
be maltreated multiple times by the same perpetrator or by different combinations of perpetra-
tors (e.g., mother alone, mother and nonparent(s), two parents). 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 2020 data show 90.6 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. Nearly 40.0 percent (37.6%) of victims are maltreated by a mother acting alone,
23.6 percent of victims are maltreated by a father acting alone, and 20.7 percent of victims
are maltreated by both parents (two parents of known sex). More than 14.0 percent (14.4%) of
victims are maltreated by a perpetrator who was not the child’s parent. The largest categories in
the nonparent group are relative(s) (5.4%), unmarried partner(s) of parent (3.3%), and “other(s)”
(3.2%). (See table 3–14 and related notes.) 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.

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
quality issues. Exclusion rules are listed in the individual table notes below. Not every table
has exclusion rules.
■ 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, first-time victim, etc.) by the child population count (children,
by age, etc.) and multiplying by 1,000.
■ 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.

analysis.


Table 3–1 Children Who Received an Investigation or Alternative Response,
2016–2020
■ The number of children is a unique count.
■ The percent change was calculated by subtracting 2016 data from 2020 data, dividing the
result by 2016 data, and multiplying by 100.

Disposition, 2020
■ 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, 2016–2020

■ The number of victims is a unique count.
■ The percent change is calculated by subtracting 2016 data from 2020 data, dividing the result
by 2016 data, and multiplying by 100. A state must have data in both years.
Table 3–4 First-time Victims, 2020

■ The number of first-time victims is a unique count.
■ States are excluded from this analysis if they have fewer than 5.0 percent of prior victims.
■ 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 first-
time victims.
Table 3–5 Victims by Age, 2020

■ There are no population data for unknown age and, therefore, no rates.
Table 3–6 Victims by Sex, 2020

■ There are no population data for children with unknown sex and, therefore, no rates.
Table 3–7 Victims by Race or Ethnicity, 2020

■ 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 (Categories), 2020

■ 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.
Table 3–9 Victims of Sex Trafficking by Sex and Age, 2020

■ Table 3–9 Victims of Sex Trafficking by Sex and Age, 2020.
Table 3–10 Infants with Prenatal Substance Exposure by Submission Type,

2020
■ Table 3–10 Infants with Prenatal Substance Exposure by Submission Type, 2020.
Table 3–11 Screened-in Infants with Prenatal Substance Exposure Who Have a
Plan of Safe Care, 2020
■ 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 3–12 Screened-in Infants with Prenatal Substance Exposure Who Have a
Referral to Appropriate Services, 2020
■ 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.
Table 3–13 Victims With Caregiver Risk Factors, 2020

■ 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 specific 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.
■ As states have varying abilities to report on caregiver risk factors, the national percentages
are calculated only on those states able to report the specific risk factor as shown in the row
labelled National Count of Victims in Reporting States.
Table 3–14 Victims by Relationship to Their Perpetrators, 2020

■ 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.
■ States are excluded from this analysis if more than 20.0 percent of perpetrators are reported
with an unknown or missing relationship.

■ 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 fields. More
information may be found in Appendix D.
■ The relationship categories listed under nonparent perpetrator include any perpetrator
relationship that was not identified as an adoptive parent, a biological parent, or a stepparent.
■ 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 nonpar-
ent; two mothers and nonparent; and two fathers and nonparent.
■ The three parents of known sex category was added to reflect the state-reported parental
relationships.
■ 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.
■ The unknown relationship category includes victims with an unknown 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 3–1 Children Who Received an Investigation or
Alternative Response, 2016–2020 (continues next page)
Percent Change from
State 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2016 to 2020
Alabama 36,776 38,871 38,634 39,335 36,931 0.4
Alaska 11,801 13,184 12,749 14,429 15,460 31.0
Arizona 93,488 83,693 87,862 82,336 77,146 -17.5
Arkansas 58,685 60,736 58,823 57,339 54,775 -6.7
California 376,738 365,921 360,040 343,536 306,919 -18.5
Colorado 42,441 43,558 44,698 45,849 43,483 2.5
Connecticut 23,543 24,432 19,693 18,669 14,135 -40.0
Delaware 13,861 13,281 12,180 12,373 10,672 -23.0
District of Columbia 12,855 14,210 14,334 12,315 8,651 -32.7
Florida 287,951 296,250 292,518 285,141 251,149 -12.8
Georgia 169,328 164,405 164,147 157,705 121,595 -28.2
Hawaii 3,706 3,484 3,817 4,378 4,938 33.2
Idaho 11,363 11,712 12,825 13,385 12,769 12.4
Illinois 140,480 134,004 146,141 151,490 140,762 0.2
Indiana 146,673 163,110 161,340 147,872 139,343 -5.0
Iowa 30,544 35,194 38,631 38,253 35,469 16.1
Kansas 27,388 27,138 27,816 32,877 29,552 7.9
Kentucky 71,876 80,405 83,902 77,512 67,066 -6.7
Louisiana 33,570 27,941 26,064 27,366 23,553 -29.8
Maine 11,613 11,226 11,031 16,288 18,871 62.5
Maryland 32,020 32,433 32,244 32,196 29,852 -6.8
Massachusetts 79,335 74,440 76,244 72,962 62,829 -20.8
Michigan 149,302 150,927 158,673 161,058 129,271 -13.4
Minnesota 38,816 40,697 39,581 38,690 36,274 -6.5
Mississippi 38,538 39,334 40,682 38,838 33,450 -13.2
Missouri 75,593 70,419 81,059 67,322 62,059 -17.9
Montana 13,702 14,237 15,300 15,400 15,528 13.3
Nebraska 22,852 25,192 24,476 25,312 25,964 13.6
Nevada 27,832 28,126 30,220 29,439 27,980 0.5
New Hampshire 13,935 12,636 13,888 12,798 13,336 -4.3
New Jersey 73,889 74,393 77,661 78,741 70,179 -5.0
New Mexico 23,656 26,597 25,774 26,040 25,980 9.8
New York 209,331 218,147 218,684 216,016 194,127 -7.3
North Carolina 119,994 120,734 112,261 100,086 108,485 -9.6
North Dakota 6,647 6,728 7,295 6,597 5,570 -16.2
Ohio 103,868 107,992 110,550 113,071 104,750 0.8
Oklahoma 53,724 54,726 58,958 57,504 58,379 8.7
Oregon 49,964 44,058 50,319 55,063 48,161 -3.6
Pennsylvania 40,237 42,890 42,295 41,062 35,447 -11.9
Puerto Rico - 18,395 15,053 15,044 12,510 -
Rhode Island 7,546 7,493 10,841 9,334 8,062 6.8
South Carolina 65,151 68,718 82,617 84,872 63,067 -3.2
South Dakota 4,139 4,201 3,761 4,039 4,032 -2.6
Tennessee 91,562 91,992 87,384 94,946 86,109 -6.0
Texas 269,952 283,764 281,562 278,004 263,493 -2.4
Utah 24,985 25,773 26,076 26,926 25,860 3.5
Vermont 4,603 4,710 4,485 4,429 3,178 -31.0
Virginia 62,808 61,754 49,156 49,338 44,902 -28.5
Washington 40,793 41,299 46,131 49,174 47,375 16.1
West Virginia 52,442 52,390 52,276 53,491 49,128 -6.3
Wisconsin 34,539 35,290 36,103 35,105 32,062 -7.2
Wyoming 5,027 5,271 4,914 5,093 4,006 -20.3
National 3,441,462 3,498,511 3,533,768 3,476,438 3,144,644 N/A
Reporting States 51 52 52 52 52 -

Table 3–1 Children Who Received an Investigation
or Alternative Response, 2016–2020
2016 Rate per 1,000 2017 Rate per 1,000 2018 Rate per 1,000 2019 Rate per 1,000 2020 Rate per 1,000
State Children Children Children Children Children
Alabama 33.4 35.4 35.4 36.1 34.0
Alaska 63.1 71.0 69.6 80.0 86.5
Arizona 57.1 51.1 53.6 50.2 46.9
Arkansas 83.1 86.0 83.6 81.8 78.3
California 41.5 40.4 40.1 38.7 34.9
Colorado 33.6 34.5 35.4 36.5 34.8
Connecticut 31.3 32.9 26.8 25.7 19.7
Delaware 67.9 65.1 59.7 60.6 52.1
District of Columbia 105.7 113.8 113.1 96.2 66.8
Florida 69.2 70.5 69.2 67.3 59.1
Georgia 67.4 65.4 65.4 62.9 48.6
Hawaii 12.0 11.4 12.6 14.6 16.7
Idaho 25.9 26.4 28.8 29.9 28.3
Illinois 47.9 46.3 51.1 53.8 50.7
Indiana 93.0 103.6 102.6 94.2 89.0
Iowa 41.8 48.1 52.9 52.5 48.9
Kansas 38.2 38.1 39.4 46.9 42.4
Kentucky 71.0 79.5 83.2 77.2 66.9
Louisiana 30.1 25.2 23.7 25.1 21.8
Maine 45.6 44.4 44.0 65.3 76.0
Maryland 23.8 24.1 24.0 24.1 22.4
Massachusetts 57.5 54.2 55.8 53.9 46.8
Michigan 68.0 69.2 73.3 75.1 60.8
Minnesota 30.0 31.3 30.4 29.7 27.9
Mississippi 53.4 55.0 57.5 55.5 48.3
Missouri 54.5 50.9 58.8 49.0 45.3
Montana 60.1 62.0 66.8 67.3 67.6
Nebraska 48.2 52.9 51.4 53.2 54.7
Nevada 41.2 41.2 43.9 42.4 40.1
New Hampshire 53.0 48.5 53.8 50.0 52.7
New Jersey 37.5 37.9 39.7 40.5 36.3
New Mexico 47.8 54.4 53.4 54.6 55.0
New York 50.4 53.0 53.7 53.6 48.7
North Carolina 52.3 52.4 48.7 43.4 47.0
North Dakota 37.8 38.1 40.9 36.5 30.7
Ohio 39.7 41.4 42.6 43.8 40.8
Oklahoma 55.8 57.1 61.7 60.3 61.2
Oregon 57.4 50.5 57.9 63.7 56.0
Pennsylvania 15.0 16.1 15.9 15.6 13.5
Puerto Rico - 28.2 25.4 26.3 22.9
Rhode Island 36.1 36.2 52.6 45.8 39.9
South Carolina 59.3 62.2 74.5 76.2 56.4
South Dakota 19.4 19.4 17.4 18.5 18.5
Tennessee 60.9 61.0 57.9 62.8 56.9
Texas 36.9 38.5 38.1 37.5 35.4
Utah 27.1 27.8 28.0 29.0 27.8
Vermont 38.9 40.2 38.8 38.7 28.1
Virginia 33.6 33.0 26.3 26.4 24.1
Washington 25.0 25.0 27.8 29.6 28.4
West Virginia 140.1 141.7 143.2 148.4 137.9
Wisconsin 26.8 27.5 28.3 27.7 25.5
Wyoming 36.1 38.7 36.5 38.1 30.1
National 46.7 47.1 47.8 47.2 42.9
Reporting States - - - - -

Table 3–2 Children Who Received an Investigation or Alternative Response
by Disposition, 2020 (continues next page)
State Substantiated Indicated Alternative Response Unsubstantiated Intentionally False
Alabama 12,029 - - 27,205 -
Alaska 3,684 - - 15,160 -
Arizona 10,452 58 - 49,062 -
Arkansas 9,734 - 6,161 27,624 -
California 64,001 - - 256,903 -
Colorado 12,513 - 13,717 26,047 -
Connecticut 6,759 - - 9,342 -
Delaware 1,227 - - 7,566 -
District of Columbia 1,699 - - 4,901 -
Florida 29,599 - - 197,436 -
Georgia 8,884 - 45,407 42,321 -
Hawaii 1,371 - - 4,002 -
Idaho 2,000 - - 13,196 784
Illinois 40,282 - - 92,464 279
Indiana 24,219 - - 166,585 -
Iowa 12,705 - 11,602 25,864 -
Kansas 2,519 - - 36,045 -
Kentucky 18,260 - - 57,544 -
Louisiana 7,100 - - 17,299 -
Maine 5,220 - - 13,275 -
Maryland 4,675 3,104 18,306 6,746 -
Massachusetts 24,958 - - 23,346 -
Michigan 16,082 12,572 - 91,488 6
Minnesota 6,934 - 23,802 9,892 -
Mississippi 8,784 - - 30,785 -
Missouri 4,558 - 49,178 20,217 -
Montana 4,085 37 - 14,681 -
Nebraska 2,472 - 2,069 17,694 -
Nevada 5,231 - 726 18,021 -
New Hampshire 1,214 - - 13,256 -
New Jersey 3,821 - - 79,988 -
New Mexico 8,242 - - 26,249 -
New York 67,660 - 13,130 160,554 -
North Carolina 6,982 17,139 84,038 16,503 -
North Dakota 1,657 - - 4,484 -
Ohio 18,513 7,613 52,621 43,354 -
Oklahoma 15,439 - 1,222 45,331 -
Oregon 12,384 - - 40,348 -
Pennsylvania 4,770 - - 31,095 -
Puerto Rico 3,804 24 - 6,081 56
Rhode Island 2,905 - - 6,267 -
South Carolina 15,109 - 2,774 40,584 -
South Dakota 1,656 - - 2,739 -
Tennessee 8,091 820 55,605 30,046 -
Texas 67,462 - 39,133 164,838 -
Utah 10,234 - - 18,332 30
Vermont 562 - 1,447 1,605 8
Virginia 5,836 - 36,602 7,646 -
Washington 4,583 - 33,701 20,473 60
West Virginia 6,411 - - 33,679 -
Wisconsin 4,372 - 6,580 27,460 -
Wyoming 1,050 - 3,286 345 -
National 624,793 41,367 501,107 2,143,968 1,223
Reporting States 16.5 1.1 13.2 56.4 0.0
National States 52 8 21 52 7

Alternative Response by Disposition, 2020
State Closed With No Finding No Alleged Maltreatment Other Unknown Total Children
Alabama 1,189 - 1 104 40,528
Alaska 2,552 - 5 - 21,401
Arizona 1,989 32,154 - - 93,715
Arkansas 1,409 20,027 - - 64,955
California - 47,214 - 2 368,120
Colorado - - - 256 52,533
Connecticut - - - - 16,101
Delaware 1,421 1,590 - - 11,804
District of Columbia 229 3,434 - - 10,263
Florida - 75,723 - 1,529 304,287
Georgia - 50,015 - - 146,627
Hawaii - - - 34 5,407
Idaho - - - - 15,980
Illinois - 47,925 - - 180,950
Indiana - - - - 190,804
Iowa - - - 10 50,181
Kansas 697 - - - 39,261
Kentucky 1,115 - 4,091 - 81,010
Louisiana 1,340 - - - 25,739
Maine - 6,814 - - 25,309
Maryland - - - - 32,831
Massachusetts - 16,422 10,154 - 74,880
Michigan 1,010 40,042 - - 161,200
Minnesota 1,795 - - - 42,423
Mississippi 1,349 - - - 40,918
Missouri 1,932 - 406 44 76,335
Montana 886 25 172 - 19,886
Nebraska 476 9,490 - - 32,201
Nevada 18 8,869 - - 32,865
New Hampshire 1,695 - - 1 16,166
New Jersey - - - - 83,809
New Mexico - - - - 34,491
New York - 2,059 1 - 243,404
North Carolina 131 - - 17 124,810
North Dakota - - - - 6,141
Ohio 4,147 - - - 126,248
Oklahoma 5,188 - - - 67,180
Oregon - - 5,528 - 58,260
Pennsylvania - - - - 35,865
Puerto Rico 1,174 2,033 - - 13,172
Rhode Island 138 - - - 9,310
South Carolina - 19,427 - - 77,894
South Dakota 175 - - - 4,570
Tennessee 7,071 - - 15 101,648
Texas 2,664 - 17,866 2,491 294,454
Utah 1,499 - - - 30,095
Vermont - - - - 3,622
Virginia 57 443 - 11 50,595
Washington 2,082 - - - 60,899
West Virginia 4,021 9,678 - 9 53,798
Wisconsin - - - - 38,412
Wyoming - - - - 4,681
National 49,449 393,384 38,224 4,523 3,798,038
National Percent 1.3 10.4 1.0 0.1 100.0

Table 3–3 Child Victims, 2016–2020 (continues next page)
Percent Change from
State 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2016 to 2020
Alabama 10,157 10,847 12,158 11,677 11,663 14.8
Alaska 3,142 2,783 2,615 3,059 3,212 2.2
Arizona 10,841 9,909 15,504 12,847 9,954 -8.2
Arkansas 9,707 9,334 8,538 8,422 9,241 -4.8
California 68,663 65,342 63,795 64,132 60,317 -12.2
Colorado 11,226 11,578 11,879 12,246 11,615 3.5
Connecticut 7,903 8,442 7,652 8,042 6,346 -19.7
Delaware 1,572 1,542 1,251 1,248 1,200 -23.7
District of Columbia 1,366 1,639 1,699 1,857 1,568 14.8
Florida 41,894 40,103 36,795 32,915 28,268 -32.5
Georgia 21,635 10,319 11,064 10,102 8,690 -59.8
Hawaii 1,491 1,280 1,265 1,342 1,294 -13.2
Idaho 1,847 1,832 1,919 1,869 1,958 6.0
Illinois 29,059 28,751 31,515 33,331 35,437 21.9
Indiana 28,430 29,198 25,731 23,029 22,648 -20.3
Iowa 8,555 10,643 11,764 11,648 10,600 23.9
Kansas 2,403 4,153 3,188 2,945 2,386 -0.7
Kentucky 20,010 22,410 23,752 20,130 16,748 -16.3
Louisiana 11,289 10,356 9,380 8,441 6,859 -39.2
Maine 3,446 3,475 3,481 4,413 4,726 37.1
Maryland 6,993 7,578 7,743 7,661 7,242 3.6
Massachusetts 31,624 24,955 25,812 25,029 22,538 -28.7
Michigan 37,261 38,062 37,703 33,043 26,932 -27.7
Minnesota 7,941 8,709 7,785 6,780 6,647 -16.3
Mississippi 10,179 10,429 10,002 9,377 8,136 -20.1
Missouri 5,481 4,585 5,662 4,762 4,449 -18.8
Montana 3,116 3,534 3,763 3,736 3,777 21.2
Nebraska 2,783 3,246 2,596 2,822 2,376 -14.6
Nevada 4,885 4,859 5,109 4,990 5,016 2.7
New Hampshire 905 1,151 1,331 1,217 1,182 30.6
New Jersey 8,264 6,614 6,008 5,132 3,655 -55.8
New Mexico 7,526 8,577 8,024 8,025 7,050 -6.3
New York 65,123 71,226 68,785 67,269 59,126 -9.2
North Carolina 7,134 7,392 6,502 5,601 22,399 214.0
North Dakota 1,805 1,981 2,097 1,797 1,614 -10.6
Ohio 23,635 24,897 25,158 25,470 23,691 0.2
Oklahoma 14,308 14,457 15,355 15,148 14,685 2.6
Oregon 11,812 11,013 12,581 13,543 11,487 -2.8
Pennsylvania 4,355 4,625 4,695 4,817 4,582 5.2
Puerto Rico - 5,729 4,381 4,738 3,572 -
Rhode Island 2,955 3,095 3,644 3,183 2,743 -7.2
South Carolina 17,331 17,071 19,130 18,717 14,263 -17.7
South Dakota 1,246 1,339 1,426 1,537 1,570 26.0
Tennessee 9,665 9,354 9,186 9,859 8,687 -10.1
Texas 57,374 61,506 63,271 64,093 65,116 13.5
Utah 9,614 9,947 10,122 10,579 9,694 0.8
Vermont 822 878 958 851 530 -35.5
Virginia 5,941 6,277 6,132 6,159 5,658 -4.8
Washington 4,725 4,386 4,498 4,222 3,967 -16.0
West Virginia 5,938 6,370 6,946 6,727 6,116 3.0
Wisconsin 4,822 4,902 5,017 4,576 4,177 -13.4
Wyoming 977 950 1,044 1,096 992 1.5
National 671,176 673,630 677,411 656,251 618,399 N/A
Reporting States 51 52 52 52 52 -

Table 3–3 Child Victims, 2016–2020
2016 Rate per 1,000 2017 Rate per 1,000 2018 Rate per 1,000 2019 Rate per 1,000 2020 Rate per 1,000
State Children Children Children Children Children
Alabama 9.2 9.9 11.1 10.7 10.7
Alaska 16.8 15.0 14.3 17.0 18.0
Arizona 6.6 6.0 9.5 7.8 6.0
Arkansas 13.7 13.2 12.1 12.0 13.2
California 7.6 7.2 7.1 7.2 6.9
Colorado 8.9 9.2 9.4 9.7 9.3
Connecticut 10.5 11.4 10.4 11.1 8.8
Delaware 7.7 7.6 6.1 6.1 5.9
District of Columbia 11.2 13.1 13.4 14.5 12.1
Florida 10.1 9.5 8.7 7.8 6.7
Georgia 8.6 4.1 4.4 4.0 3.5
Hawaii 4.8 4.2 4.2 4.5 4.4
Idaho 4.2 4.1 4.3 4.2 4.3
Illinois 9.9 9.9 11.0 11.8 12.8
Indiana 18.0 18.6 16.4 14.7 14.5
Iowa 11.7 14.5 16.1 16.0 14.6
Kansas 3.3 5.8 4.5 4.2 3.4
Kentucky 19.8 22.2 23.6 20.0 16.7
Louisiana 10.1 9.3 8.5 7.7 6.3
Maine 13.5 13.7 13.9 17.7 19.0
Maryland 5.2 5.6 5.8 5.7 5.4
Massachusetts 22.9 18.2 18.9 18.5 16.8
Michigan 17.0 17.4 17.4 15.4 12.7
Minnesota 6.1 6.7 6.0 5.2 5.1
Mississippi 14.1 14.6 14.1 13.4 11.7
Missouri 4.0 3.3 4.1 3.5 3.2
Montana 13.7 15.4 16.4 16.3 16.4
Nebraska 5.9 6.8 5.4 5.9 5.0
Nevada 7.2 7.1 7.4 7.2 7.2
New Hampshire 3.4 4.4 5.2 4.8 4.7
New Jersey 4.2 3.4 3.1 2.6 1.9
New Mexico 15.2 17.5 16.6 16.8 14.9
New York 15.7 17.3 16.9 16.7 14.8
North Carolina 3.1 3.2 2.8 2.4 9.7
North Dakota 10.3 11.2 11.7 10.0 8.9
Ohio 9.0 9.5 9.7 9.9 9.2
Oklahoma 14.9 15.1 16.1 15.9 15.4
Oregon 13.6 12.6 14.5 15.7 13.3
Pennsylvania 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.7
Puerto Rico - 8.8 7.4 8.3 6.5
Rhode Island 14.1 15.0 17.7 15.6 13.6
South Carolina 15.8 15.4 17.3 16.8 12.8
South Dakota 5.8 6.2 6.6 7.1 7.2
Tennessee 6.4 6.2 6.1 6.5 5.7
Texas 7.8 8.4 8.6 8.7 8.8
Utah 10.4 10.7 10.9 11.4 10.4
Vermont 7.0 7.5 8.3 7.4 4.7
Virginia 3.2 3.4 3.3 3.3 3.0
Washington 2.9 2.7 2.7 2.5 2.4
West Virginia 15.9 17.2 19.0 18.7 17.2
Wisconsin 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.6 3.3
Wyoming 7.0 7.0 7.8 8.2 7.5
National 9.1 9.1 9.2 8.9 8.4

Table 3–4 First-Time Victims, 2020
State First-time Victims First-time Victims Rate per 1,000 Children

Alabama 9,391 8.6
Alaska 2,120 11.9
Arizona 8,166 5.0
Arkansas 7,705 11.0
California 47,931 5.5
Colorado 8,225 6.6
Connecticut 4,611 6.4
Delaware 1,010 4.9
District of Columbia 1,013 7.8
Florida 12,765 3.0
Georgia 7,156 2.9
Hawaii 1,004 3.4
Idaho 1,602 3.6
Illinois 23,628 8.5
Indiana 16,032 10.2
Iowa 7,132 9.8
Kansas 2,142 3.1
Kentucky 10,732 10.7
Louisiana 5,437 5.0
Maine 3,099 12.5
Maryland 4,661 3.5
Massachusetts 12,466 9.3
Michigan 16,859 7.9
Minnesota 6,044 4.6
Mississippi 7,145 10.3
Missouri 3,866 2.8
Montana 3,009 13.1
Nebraska 1,881 4.0
Nevada 3,316 4.8
New Hampshire 946 3.7
New Jersey 2,902 1.5
New Mexico 4,949 10.5
New York 34,462 8.6
North Carolina - -
North Dakota 1,130 6.2
Ohio 17,381 6.8
Oklahoma 11,374 11.9
Oregon 7,472 8.7
Pennsylvania 4,331 1.7
Puerto Rico 3,359 6.2
Rhode Island 1,849 9.2
South Carolina 10,083 9.0
South Dakota 1,238 5.7
Tennessee 4,306 2.8
Texas 52,650 7.1
Utah 6,722 7.2
Vermont 433 3.8
Virginia 5,315 2.8
Washington 1,851 1.1
West Virginia 5,029 14.1
Wisconsin 3,519 2.8
Wyoming 768 5.8
National 422,217 5.9
Reporting States 51 -

Table 3–5 Victims by Age, 2020 (continues next page)
State <1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Alabama 1,925 755 713 671 650 594 574 526 520 523
Alaska 419 204 210 219 192 189 180 171 166 169
Arizona 2,644 691 608 588 525 526 463 426 388 401
Arkansas 2,029 522 540 493 551 515 446 411 425 363
California 9,747 3,898 3,817 3,512 3,328 3,381 3,301 3,105 3,018 2,855
Colorado 1,755 754 733 671 638 617 661 620 618 586
Connecticut 951 401 380 346 319 407 319 341 344 279
Delaware 140 77 89 69 59 71 79 73 63 65
District of Columbia 195 92 90 94 98 100 112 101 93 105
Florida 4,501 2,252 2,027 1,948 1,737 1,779 1,509 1,489 1,329 1,246
Georgia 1,599 537 530 474 457 434 489 443 424 415
Hawaii 185 78 66 71 77 66 68 61 61 75
Idaho 472 104 114 97 100 97 80 94 75 94
Illinois 4,640 2,747 2,545 2,474 2,276 2,167 2,004 1,931 1,808 1,784
Indiana 4,900 1,439 1,417 1,254 1,235 1,186 1,163 1,091 1,011 1,015
Iowa 1,649 677 729 685 640 618 598 571 526 518
Kansas 187 139 143 155 141 137 116 147 114 133
Kentucky 2,493 1,165 1,118 1,019 1,032 972 959 892 816 787
Louisiana 2,406 397 367 346 330 311 297 301 258 226
Maine 527 298 285 275 304 309 306 290 277 234
Maryland 565 411 360 383 410 432 439 371 374 360
Massachusetts 2,769 1,376 1,337 1,252 1,203 1,254 1,293 1,260 1,236 1,167
Michigan 3,430 1,994 1,866 1,840 1,670 1,594 1,540 1,512 1,389 1,268
Minnesota 965 413 407 412 387 416 324 366 302 322
Mississippi 1,175 448 414 414 419 414 444 404 391 370
Missouri 339 266 246 263 242 210 219 206 223 217
Montana 448 292 287 252 231 223 232 208 193 181
Nebraska 282 188 150 156 143 156 142 128 115 118
Nevada 831 372 354 327 311 321 266 288 244 214
New Hampshire 150 82 65 77 79 69 73 65 59 61
New Jersey 489 187 216 187 186 183 224 198 200 198
New Mexico 917 408 404 399 408 408 439 393 424 356
New York 6,005 3,605 3,411 3,358 3,275 3,520 3,596 3,364 3,228 3,249
North Carolina 3,053 1,566 1,494 1,377 1,359 1,254 1,225 1,224 1,139 1,139
North Dakota 226 124 106 93 97 80 103 101 76 82
Ohio 4,081 1,449 1,358 1,318 1,287 1,272 1,273 1,155 1,091 1,077
Oklahoma 2,435 1,067 993 951 908 857 845 788 717 706
Oregon 1,239 731 747 743 750 677 652 651 628 563
Pennsylvania 354 237 240 195 237 199 181 173 190 212
Puerto Rico 249 175 192 228 220 221 208 251 200 194
Rhode Island 421 204 191 173 154 167 144 165 138 130
South Carolina 2,098 1,098 955 831 839 818 788 732 695 704
South Dakota 254 117 121 117 126 85 82 87 85 72
Tennessee 1,925 687 458 426 422 390 391 350 311 304
Texas 12,159 5,815 5,269 4,958 4,648 4,509 3,363 2,919 2,715 2,640
Utah 973 490 523 489 482 493 507 501 472 498
Vermont 35 38 29 34 35 32 20 28 37 30
Virginia 722 410 437 369 316 317 304 287 273 267
Washington 385 282 316 319 270 237 232 201 194 217
West Virginia 1,140 384 324 374 334 351 332 351 327 306
Wisconsin 453 309 287 285 255 257 235 221 213 196
Wyoming 136 81 55 68 73 54 52 59 50 56
National 94,067 42,533 40,133 38,129 36,465 35,946 33,892 32,091 30,263 29,347
Reporting States 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52

Unborn,
Unknown,
State 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 and 18–21 Total Victims
Alabama 492 490 523 591 637 633 433 288 125 11,663
Alaska 165 171 180 144 124 112 109 65 23 3,212
Arizona 395 363 379 366 345 304 315 213 14 9,954
Arkansas 371 357 383 419 384 382 322 247 81 9,241
California 2,831 2,742 2,823 2,734 2,586 2,479 2,297 1,827 36 60,317
Colorado 603 589 588 552 500 432 388 277 33 11,615
Connecticut 334 265 345 315 274 289 229 175 33 6,346
Delaware 69 60 51 47 64 50 38 35 1 1,200
District of Columbia 67 73 62 83 63 53 49 35 3 1,568
Florida 1,244 1,184 1,192 1,142 1,062 1,057 881 607 82 28,268
Georgia 386 425 416 432 401 376 292 152 8 8,690
Hawaii 60 68 61 65 66 57 52 48 9 1,294
Idaho 95 69 96 89 92 73 78 38 1 1,958
Illinois 1,725 1,612 1,596 1,544 1,375 1,255 1,128 760 66 35,437
Indiana 975 948 929 993 947 907 732 486 20 22,648
Iowa 544 520 500 483 455 383 286 207 11 10,600
Kansas 140 137 142 121 124 126 97 82 5 2,386
Kentucky 813 817 807 727 698 642 558 398 35 16,748
Louisiana 248 238 220 237 196 210 160 102 9 6,859
Maine 277 255 238 210 219 184 137 83 18 4,726
Maryland 370 405 426 431 429 414 356 277 29 7,242
Massachusetts 1,107 1,155 1,136 1,160 1,078 1,069 896 755 35 22,538
Michigan 1,262 1,270 1,188 1,218 1,182 1,113 974 600 22 26,932
Minnesota 336 328 350 367 303 256 223 150 20 6,647
Mississippi 412 451 458 447 440 417 376 226 16 8,136
Missouri 214 236 243 332 294 281 282 136 - 4,449
Montana 185 205 166 151 139 132 116 82 54 3,777
Nebraska 103 111 109 109 108 101 73 61 23 2,376
Nevada 236 199 211 191 190 169 176 113 3 5,016
New Hampshire 45 62 63 56 55 51 42 28 - 1,182
New Jersey 218 210 181 162 187 164 141 117 7 3,655
New Mexico 379 349 350 339 304 281 233 172 87 7,050
New York 3,218 3,003 3,014 3,037 2,852 3,060 2,584 1,637 110 59,126
North Carolina 1,089 1,086 1,103 1,023 994 890 732 505 147 22,399
North Dakota 72 79 74 74 75 68 40 24 20 1,614
Ohio 1,086 1,082 1,135 1,180 1,117 1,158 853 641 78 23,691
Oklahoma 659 696 622 623 595 494 394 277 58 14,685
Oregon 613 566 598 555 531 451 423 305 64 11,487
Pennsylvania 227 247 263 317 357 340 308 240 65 4,582
Puerto Rico 186 195 185 190 197 176 172 117 16 3,572
Rhode Island 141 131 117 94 99 108 86 57 23 2,743
South Carolina 684 664 689 665 570 544 468 279 142 14,263
South Dakota 59 61 77 67 43 47 36 29 5 1,570
Tennessee 336 392 434 406 391 340 365 281 78 8,687
Texas 2,523 2,339 2,436 2,211 2,027 1,876 1,577 871 261 65,116
Utah 485 465 545 609 588 575 559 427 13 9,694
Vermont 24 21 27 29 25 25 31 26 4 530
Virginia 259 264 274 239 254 221 195 151 99 5,658
Washington 166 187 187 191 188 147 138 106 4 3,967
West Virginia 286 269 290 259 250 218 166 127 28 6,116
Wisconsin 201 204 195 204 174 184 180 115 9 4,177
Wyoming 48 45 44 36 52 29 39 14 1 992
National 29,063 28,360 28,721 28,266 26,700 25,403 21,815 15,071 2,134 618,399

<1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Rate per Rate per Rate per Rate per Rate per Rate per Rate per Rate per Rate per
State 1,000 children 1,000 children 1,000 children 1,000 children 1,000 children 1,000 children 1,000 children 1,000 children 1,000 children
Alabama 34.2 13.2 12.1 11.4 10.8 9.8 9.6 8.9 8.7
Alaska 43.2 21.3 21.2 21.7 18.3 18.4 17.4 16.6 16.1
Arizona 32.5 8.3 7.2 6.7 5.9 5.7 5.0 4.7 4.3
Arkansas 56.3 14.3 14.4 13.1 14.2 13.2 11.6 10.8 10.9
California 21.8 8.7 8.4 7.4 6.9 6.9 6.7 6.3 6.1
Colorado 27.8 12.0 11.4 10.1 9.4 9.0 9.6 9.1 9.0
Connecticut 27.8 11.4 10.5 9.4 8.5 10.7 8.4 8.9 8.8
Delaware 13.3 7.2 8.2 6.2 5.2 6.3 7.0 6.6 5.5
District of Columbia 21.1 10.3 10.3 10.8 11.3 11.7 14.4 12.7 12.0
Florida 20.5 10.1 8.9 8.5 7.4 7.6 6.4 6.4 5.6
Georgia 12.8 4.3 4.1 3.6 3.4 3.2 3.6 3.3 3.1
Hawaii 11.4 4.7 3.9 4.2 4.4 3.8 3.9 3.4 3.5
Idaho 21.9 4.8 5.1 4.1 4.1 3.9 3.2 3.7 3.0
Illinois 33.1 19.5 17.5 16.7 14.9 14.1 13.3 12.8 11.9
Indiana 60.9 17.7 16.9 15.0 14.4 13.6 13.4 12.5 11.7
Iowa 44.6 18.1 18.8 17.5 15.9 15.2 14.8 14.2 13.2
Kansas 5.3 3.9 3.9 4.2 3.7 3.6 3.0 3.8 2.9
Kentucky 47.5 21.9 20.5 18.8 18.6 17.4 17.2 16.0 14.8
Louisiana 42.1 6.9 6.2 5.8 5.3 5.1 4.8 5.0 4.3
Maine 42.9 23.5 22.9 21.5 23.0 23.1 22.8 21.5 20.6
Maryland 8.1 5.8 5.0 5.3 5.5 5.8 6.0 5.0 5.0
Massachusetts 40.2 19.9 18.9 17.6 16.7 17.2 17.7 17.2 16.8
Michigan 31.8 18.2 16.7 16.2 14.4 13.6 13.1 13.0 11.9
Minnesota 14.5 6.1 5.9 5.8 5.3 5.7 4.4 5.0 4.2
Mississippi 33.2 12.5 11.3 11.3 11.3 11.1 11.9 10.9 10.3
Missouri 4.7 3.7 3.3 3.5 3.2 2.8 2.9 2.7 3.0
Montana 39.4 25.5 24.2 20.3 18.0 17.0 17.8 16.1 14.9
Nebraska 11.3 7.5 5.9 5.9 5.4 5.7 5.3 4.8 4.4
Nevada 23.3 10.3 9.7 8.7 8.0 8.2 6.9 7.4 6.4
New Hampshire 12.4 6.6 5.2 6.0 5.9 5.1 5.5 4.7 4.3
New Jersey 4.9 1.8 2.1 1.8 1.8 1.7 2.1 1.9 1.9
New Mexico 40.6 17.6 17.1 16.5 16.2 15.9 16.9 15.0 16.1
New York 27.2 16.4 15.3 15.2 14.7 15.7 16.3 15.1 14.5
North Carolina 25.8 13.1 12.3 11.3 10.8 10.0 9.7 9.7 9.0
North Dakota 21.6 12.0 10.1 8.5 8.9 7.3 9.7 9.7 7.4
Ohio 30.8 10.8 9.8 9.5 9.1 8.9 8.9 8.1 7.7
Oklahoma 50.0 21.6 19.7 18.5 16.9 16.0 15.7 14.5 13.4
Oregon 29.5 17.2 17.1 16.3 15.9 14.1 13.5 13.5 13.0
Pennsylvania 2.7 1.8 1.7 1.4 1.7 1.4 1.2 1.2 1.3
Puerto Rico 12.7 8.3 9.5 10.1 8.8 8.2 7.3 8.4 6.4
Rhode Island 40.5 19.6 17.4 16.1 13.7 15.0 13.1 15.2 12.5
South Carolina 37.2 19.2 16.4 14.1 13.9 13.2 12.9 11.9 11.2
South Dakota 21.5 9.9 9.9 9.5 10.2 6.8 6.6 7.1 7.0
Tennessee 24.1 8.5 5.6 5.2 5.1 4.6 4.7 4.2 3.7
Texas 32.3 15.2 13.5 12.3 11.1 10.7 8.0 7.0 6.6
Utah 20.5 10.4 11.1 10.0 9.5 9.6 9.8 9.6 9.3
Vermont 6.6 6.8 5.3 5.8 5.8 5.3 3.2 4.6 5.8
Virginia 7.4 4.1 4.3 3.6 3.0 3.0 2.9 2.8 2.6
Washington 4.5 3.2 3.6 3.4 2.8 2.5 2.5 2.1 2.1
West Virginia 65.3 21.5 17.7 20.1 17.7 17.9 16.6 17.3 16.3
Wisconsin 7.2 4.8 4.4 4.3 3.7 3.7 3.4 3.2 3.1
Wyoming 21.5 12.8 8.1 9.8 9.8 7.3 7.1 8.0 6.7
National 25.1 11.2 10.4 9.7 9.0 8.8 8.3 7.9 7.4
Reporting States - - - - - - - - -

Table 3–5 Victims by Age, 2020
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Rate per Rate per Rate per Rate per Rate per Rate per Rate per Rate per Rate per
State 1,000 Children 1,000 Children 1,000 Children 1,000 Children 1,000 Children 1,000 Children 1,000 Children 1,000 Children 1,000 Children
Alabama 8.7 8.1 8.0 8.3 9.4 10.3 10.2 7.0 4.7
Alaska 16.2 16.5 17.2 18.2 14.7 13.2 11.7 11.7 6.9
Arizona 4.4 4.3 3.9 3.9 3.7 3.6 3.2 3.3 2.3
Arkansas 9.4 9.5 9.1 9.4 10.2 9.5 9.5 8.1 6.2
California 5.7 5.8 5.6 5.5 5.4 5.1 4.9 4.6 3.6
Colorado 8.3 8.5 8.3 8.1 7.5 6.8 5.9 5.3 3.8
Connecticut 7.0 8.3 6.5 8.1 7.3 6.3 6.5 5.1 3.8
Delaware 5.6 6.0 5.2 4.3 4.0 5.5 4.3 3.2 3.0
District of Columbia 14.3 10.0 11.7 10.2 14.0 11.5 10.1 9.5 6.8
Florida 5.2 5.3 5.0 4.9 4.6 4.3 4.3 3.6 2.6
Georgia 3.0 2.7 3.0 2.8 2.9 2.7 2.6 2.0 1.0
Hawaii 4.3 3.7 4.4 3.8 4.2 4.3 3.8 3.4 3.2
Idaho 3.7 3.7 2.7 3.6 3.3 3.4 2.7 2.9 1.5
Illinois 11.5 11.1 10.4 9.9 9.5 8.5 7.7 6.8 4.6
Indiana 11.7 11.2 10.8 10.3 11.0 10.5 10.1 8.1 5.4
Iowa 13.2 13.3 12.6 11.8 11.4 10.8 9.2 6.9 5.0
Kansas 3.4 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.0 3.1 3.2 2.4 2.1
Kentucky 14.3 14.8 14.6 14.1 12.6 12.3 11.2 9.8 7.0
Louisiana 3.8 4.2 4.0 3.5 3.8 3.2 3.5 2.7 1.7
Maine 17.4 19.7 18.2 16.4 14.3 14.8 12.3 9.0 5.4
Maryland 4.8 4.9 5.5 5.6 5.6 5.7 5.5 4.7 3.7
Massachusetts 15.5 14.9 15.6 14.9 15.0 13.9 13.5 11.0 9.2
Michigan 10.8 10.6 10.8 9.8 9.9 9.6 8.9 7.7 4.7
Minnesota 4.5 4.6 4.5 4.7 4.9 4.1 3.5 3.0 2.0
Mississippi 9.7 10.7 11.3 11.0 10.5 10.7 10.3 9.4 5.7
Missouri 2.8 2.8 3.1 3.1 4.2 3.7 3.6 3.6 1.7
Montana 14.0 14.3 15.7 12.3 11.2 10.6 10.2 8.8 6.4
Nebraska 4.5 3.9 4.2 4.0 4.1 4.1 3.8 2.8 2.3
Nevada 5.4 6.0 5.1 5.1 4.7 4.7 4.3 4.5 2.9
New Hampshire 4.3 3.2 4.3 4.3 3.7 3.6 3.3 2.6 1.7
New Jersey 1.8 2.0 2.0 1.6 1.5 1.7 1.5 1.2 1.0
New Mexico 13.2 13.9 12.7 12.4 12.0 10.9 10.1 8.4 6.2
New York 14.5 14.7 14.1 13.8 13.8 13.0 13.8 11.4 7.2
North Carolina 8.9 8.4 8.3 8.2 7.5 7.4 6.7 5.5 3.8
North Dakota 8.3 7.2 8.0 7.5 7.5 7.8 7.2 4.4 2.7
Ohio 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.8 8.0 7.5 7.9 5.7 4.3
Oklahoma 13.1 12.3 12.9 11.4 11.3 11.1 9.2 7.4 5.2
Oregon 11.5 12.4 11.5 11.8 11.0 10.6 9.2 8.5 6.2
Pennsylvania 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.7 2.1 2.4 2.2 2.0 1.6
Puerto Rico 6.1 5.5 5.6 5.3 5.3 5.3 4.7 4.6 3.1
Rhode Island 11.8 12.8 12.0 10.2 8.1 8.4 9.1 7.1 4.6
South Carolina 11.3 10.8 10.2 10.4 9.9 8.7 8.5 7.4 4.4
South Dakota 5.9 4.8 5.0 6.2 5.4 3.6 3.9 3.0 2.5
Tennessee 3.7 4.0 4.6 4.9 4.6 4.5 3.9 4.2 3.3
Texas 6.3 6.0 5.6 5.7 5.2 4.8 4.4 3.8 2.1
Utah 9.5 9.1 8.7 10.0 11.1 10.9 10.7 10.5 8.1
Vermont 4.7 3.8 3.3 4.1 4.3 3.7 3.7 4.4 3.7
Virginia 2.6 2.5 2.6 2.6 2.2 2.4 2.1 1.8 1.4
Washington 2.3 1.8 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.6 1.5 1.2
West Virginia 15.3 14.3 13.4 13.9 12.4 12.1 10.5 7.9 6.0
Wisconsin 2.8 2.8 2.9 2.7 2.7 2.3 2.5 2.4 1.6
Wyoming 7.5 6.1 5.8 5.5 4.4 6.6 3.7 5.2 1.9
National 7.1 7.1 6.9 6.8 6.6 6.3 6.0 5.2 3.6

Table 3–6 Victims by Sex, 2020
Boy Rate per Girl Rate per
State Boy Girl Unknown Total Victims 1,000 Children 1,000 Children
Alabama 5,242 6,413 8 11,663 9.5 12.0
Alaska 1,544 1,658 10 3,212 16.8 19.1
Arizona 4,882 5,048 24 9,954 5.8 6.3
Arkansas 4,137 5,100 4 9,241 11.5 14.9
California 29,230 30,989 98 60,317 6.5 7.2
Colorado 5,514 6,101 - 11,615 8.6 10.0
Connecticut 3,098 3,212 36 6,346 8.5 9.1
Delaware 581 619 - 1,200 5.6 6.1
District of Columbia 756 811 1 1,568 11.5 12.7
Florida 13,625 14,438 205 28,268 6.3 6.9
Georgia 4,190 4,497 3 8,690 3.3 3.7
Hawaii 601 680 13 1,294 3.9 4.7
Idaho 977 981 - 1,958 4.2 4.5
Illinois 17,468 17,846 123 35,437 12.3 13.1
Indiana 10,752 11,884 12 22,648 13.4 15.5
Iowa 5,169 5,404 27 10,600 13.9 15.2
Kansas 1,067 1,319 - 2,386 3.0 3.9
Kentucky 8,212 8,438 98 16,748 16.0 17.3
Louisiana 3,327 3,508 24 6,859 6.0 6.6
Maine 2,348 2,370 8 4,726 18.4 19.6
Maryland 3,089 4,123 30 7,242 4.5 6.3
Massachusetts 11,019 11,170 349 22,538 16.1 17.0
Michigan 13,377 13,551 4 26,932 12.3 13.0
Minnesota 3,122 3,525 - 6,647 4.7 5.5
Mississippi 3,760 4,350 26 8,136 10.7 12.8
Missouri 1,821 2,628 - 4,449 2.6 3.9
Montana 1,926 1,848 3 3,777 16.3 16.5
Nebraska 1,063 1,312 1 2,376 4.4 5.7
Nevada 2,409 2,607 - 5,016 6.8 7.6
New Hampshire 581 601 - 1,182 4.5 4.9
New Jersey 1,654 1,997 4 3,655 1.7 2.1
New Mexico 3,478 3,541 31 7,050 14.5 15.3
New York 29,319 29,785 22 59,126 14.4 15.3
North Carolina 11,098 11,295 6 22,399 9.4 10.0
North Dakota 799 811 4 1,614 8.6 9.1
Ohio 11,004 12,615 72 23,691 8.4 10.0
Oklahoma 7,191 7,490 4 14,685 14.8 16.1
Oregon 5,599 5,873 15 11,487 12.7 14.0
Pennsylvania 1,801 2,781 - 4,582 1.3 2.2
Puerto Rico 1,835 1,737 - 3,572 6.6 6.5
Rhode Island 1,366 1,367 10 2,743 13.2 13.9
South Carolina 7,187 6,981 95 14,263 12.6 12.7
South Dakota 749 819 2 1,570 6.7 7.7
Tennessee 3,765 4,879 43 8,687 4.9 6.6
Texas 31,010 33,768 338 65,116 8.2 9.3
Utah 4,422 5,272 - 9,694 9.3 11.7
Vermont 242 288 - 530 4.1 5.3
Virginia 2,696 2,955 7 5,658 2.8 3.2
Washington 1,913 2,037 17 3,967 2.2 2.5
West Virginia 2,951 3,137 28 6,116 16.1 18.1
Wisconsin 1,877 2,288 12 4,177 2.9 3.7
Wyoming 509 483 - 992 7.4 7.5
National 297,352 319,230 1,817 618,399 7.9 8.9
Reporting States 52 52 39 52 - -

Table 3–7 Victims by Race or Ethnicity, 2020 (continues next page)
American
African- Indian or
State American Alaska Native Asian Hispanic Multiple Race Pacific Islander White Unknown Total Victims
Alabama 3,338 13 19 516 378 3 7,241 155 11,663
Alaska 62 1,661 31 119 482 70 608 179 3,212
Arizona 1,039 449 45 3,597 470 20 3,204 1,130 9,954
Arkansas 1,767 10 22 689 768 23 5,874 88 9,241
California 7,895 465 1,577 33,655 1,254 199 11,888 3,384 60,317
Colorado 1,166 88 108 4,674 520 47 4,720 292 11,615
Connecticut 1,402 5 30 2,117 343 7 2,219 223 6,346
Delaware 625 - 3 144 20 - 408 - 1,200
District of Columbia 1,020 1 - 179 6 - 11 351 1,568
Florida 7,852 53 119 5,002 1,506 13 12,543 1,180 28,268
Georgia 3,452 8 20 681 471 1 3,938 119 8,690
Hawaii 19 1 111 38 530 347 161 87 1,294
Idaho 15 38 3 197 18 6 1,347 334 1,958
Illinois 11,941 16 340 6,563 940 14 15,426 197 35,437
Indiana 4,096 4 63 1,885 1,793 11 14,746 50 22,648
Iowa 1,519 143 64 1,103 334 38 7,330 69 10,600
Kansas 268 20 15 359 167 1 1,518 38 2,386
Kentucky 1,925 3 24 716 961 3 12,384 732 16,748
Louisiana 3,115 18 19 162 208 8 3,077 252 6,859
Maine 79 38 5 152 190 3 3,333 926 4,726
Maryland 2,696 9 58 648 124 3 1,660 2,044 7,242
Massachusetts 2,773 34 374 7,288 1,232 7 8,568 2,262 22,538
Michigan 7,461 83 69 1,989 2,517 10 14,756 47 26,932
Minnesota 1,128 482 172 877 1,194 3 2,527 264 6,647
Mississippi 3,246 15 15 205 180 1 4,212 262 8,136
Missouri 664 22 9 425 93 4 2,945 287 4,449
Montana 33 597 6 211 244 - 2,661 25 3,777
Nebraska 277 118 21 508 204 3 1,111 134 2,376
Nevada 1,232 27 52 1,492 320 29 1,625 239 5,016
New Hampshire 25 1 3 81 34 2 912 124 1,182
New Jersey 1,048 2 47 1,255 87 8 1,110 98 3,655
New Mexico 203 738 9 4,063 133 5 1,275 624 7,050
New York 16,172 193 1,646 17,011 2,778 36 20,815 475 59,126
North Carolina 7,341 704 112 2,608 1,372 25 9,760 477 22,399
North Dakota 104 333 8 115 124 3 811 116 1,614
Ohio 5,793 17 60 1,495 2,396 12 13,360 558 23,691
Oklahoma 1,498 1,125 34 2,647 3,713 9 5,643 16 14,685
Oregon 434 312 98 1,512 420 94 6,573 2,044 11,487
Pennsylvania 865 4 26 716 288 2 2,565 116 4,582
Puerto Rico - - - - - - - - -
Rhode Island 341 5 17 675 208 1 1,222 274 2,743
South Carolina 5,478 14 8 651 460 8 6,720 924 14,263
South Dakota 43 634 12 85 226 1 542 27 1,570
Tennessee - - - - - - - - -
Texas 13,492 53 333 29,835 2,601 74 17,728 1,000 65,116
Utah 340 200 76 2,340 303 180 6,151 104 9,694
Vermont 12 1 5 3 9 - 467 33 530
Virginia 1,355 3 50 667 358 12 3,010 203 5,658
Washington 316 163 70 706 508 43 1,999 162 3,967
West Virginia 165 - 9 58 417 1 5,395 71 6,116
Wisconsin 906 235 45 465 184 5 2,246 91 4,177
Wyoming 25 29 - 128 18 1 754 37 992
National 128,061 9,187 6,062 143,307 34,104 1,396 261,099 22,924 606,140
Reporting States 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50

Table 3–7 Victims by Race or Ethnicity, 2020
American
African- Indian or
American Alaska Native Hispanic Rate Multiple Race Pacific Islander
Rate per 1,000 Rate per 1,000 Asian Rate per per 1,000 Rate per 1,000 Rate per 1,000 White Rate per
State Children Children 1,000 Children Children Children Children 1,000 Children
Alabama 10.6 3.1 1.2 5.8 9.8 4.6 11.6
Alaska 12.2 50.3 3.1 6.6 20.4 17.1 7.2
Arizona 12.4 5.8 0.9 4.9 6.8 6.7 5.1
Arkansas 14.2 2.0 1.8 7.7 27.1 5.3 13.5
California 18.0 14.6 1.4 7.4 2.7 6.2 5.5
Colorado 21.5 12.8 2.7 11.8 8.9 20.5 6.8
Connecticut 16.8 2.4 0.8 11.4 11.7 19.8 5.9
Delaware 12.0 - 0.3 4.1 1.7 - 4.2
District of Columbia 15.2 5.6 - 8.0 1.1 - 0.4
Florida 9.2 6.1 1.0 3.8 9.1 4.4 7.1
Georgia 4.1 1.8 0.2 1.8 4.7 0.4 3.7
Hawaii 3.7 2.6 1.7 0.7 5.7 9.9 4.1
Idaho 3.9 8.5 0.5 2.3 1.1 7.3 4.0
Illinois 28.1 4.1 2.2 9.6 9.3 17.6 11.0
Indiana 23.0 1.5 1.5 10.3 26.2 15.0 13.5
Iowa 37.5 57.9 3.2 14.1 11.1 23.2 13.3
Kansas 6.3 4.3 0.7 2.7 4.4 1.2 3.3
Kentucky 20.8 2.4 1.3 10.7 21.5 3.2 15.9
Louisiana 7.9 2.8 1.0 2.0 5.9 20.4 5.6
Maine 10.6 19.9 1.4 19.5 19.9 25.4 15.3
Maryland 6.6 3.3 0.7 2.9 1.7 5.1 3.1
Massachusetts 23.2 13.6 3.6 28.0 21.7 9.7 10.7
Michigan 21.9 7.0 0.9 10.7 23.4 15.9 10.5
Minnesota 8.3 26.8 2.1 7.4 17.3 2.9 2.9
Mississippi 11.3 3.8 2.2 5.8 9.7 4.4 12.4
Missouri 3.6 4.5 0.3 4.3 1.4 1.5 3.0
Montana 22.7 27.6 3.1 13.6 22.3 - 14.9
Nebraska 9.6 23.4 1.6 5.8 10.3 9.1 3.5
Nevada 16.6 5.2 1.3 5.2 6.3 5.3 6.9
New Hampshire 5.0 2.4 0.3 4.5 3.8 25.3 4.3
New Jersey 4.1 0.6 0.2 2.3 1.4 9.0 1.3
New Mexico 23.5 16.0 1.5 14.0 10.5 19.5 11.8
New York 27.5 15.3 4.8 17.2 18.1 17.2 11.0
North Carolina 14.2 27.0 1.4 6.6 13.0 13.2 8.3
North Dakota 13.2 24.1 2.7 8.9 15.5 18.6 6.0
Ohio 14.9 4.6 0.9 8.7 18.2 8.3 7.4
Oklahoma 20.6 11.8 1.6 15.2 38.5 3.6 11.5
Oregon 21.7 34.0 2.7 7.8 7.5 21.3 12.2
Pennsylvania 2.6 1.1 0.2 2.1 2.6 2.0 1.5
Puerto Rico - - - - - - -
Rhode Island 23.1 4.9 2.2 12.2 21.0 6.3 10.8
South Carolina 16.8 4.2 0.4 5.7 9.6 10.9 11.1
South Dakota 6.3 23.4 3.4 5.1 21.9 6.0 3.5
Tennessee - - - - - - -
Texas 15.0 3.0 0.9 8.2 12.6 11.0 7.7
Utah 30.2 25.3 4.4 13.9 8.8 16.6 9.1
Vermont 5.9 3.7 1.9 0.9 2.0 - 4.7
Virginia 3.7 0.8 0.4 2.5 3.2 9.4 3.1
Washington 4.4 7.8 0.5 1.9 3.5 3.1 2.2
West Virginia 12.9 - 3.4 5.7 27.0 11.1 17.1
Wisconsin 8.2 17.9 0.9 2.9 3.4 8.3 2.6
Wyoming 20.7 7.8 - 6.2 3.9 11.5 7.4
National 13.2 15.5 1.6 7.8 10.3 9.0 7.4
Reporting States - - - - - - -

Table 3–8 Maltreatment Types of Victims (Categories), 2020 (continues next page)
Total
Medical Psychological Maltreatment
State Victims Neglect Neglect Other Physical Abuse Maltreatment Sexual Abuse Sex Trafficking Unknown Types
Alabama 11,663 86 5,033 - 5,800 21 2,212 4 - 13,156
Alaska 3,212 112 2,295 - 689 1,071 297 - - 4,464
Arizona 9,954 - 9,127 - 836 5 382 - - 10,350
Arkansas 9,241 221 6,407 32 1,806 180 1,787 12 - 10,445
California 60,317 47 53,680 343 4,132 5,422 3,258 65 - 66,947
Colorado 11,615 144 9,692 - 1,169 216 1,039 - 28 12,288
Connecticut 6,346 165 5,410 - 350 1,942 376 - - 8,243
Delaware 1,200 - 381 116 199 455 149 - - 1,300
District of Columbia 1,568 - 1,402 - 208 - 36 25 2 1,673
Florida 28,268 950 16,884 11,818 2,361 284 2,318 - - 34,615
Georgia 8,690 246 5,317 - 1,108 2,239 763 39 - 9,712
Hawaii 1,294 10 279 1,135 124 27 90 16 - 1,681
Idaho 1,958 6 1,064 - 846 - 160 2 - 2,078
Illinois 35,437 667 27,184 61 6,134 68 4,785 - - 38,899
Indiana 22,648 - 19,622 - 1,596 - 2,542 32 - 23,792
Iowa 10,600 81 9,222 - 1,098 93 670 11 - 11,175
Kansas 2,386 66 1,036 1 601 380 492 10 - 2,586
Kentucky 16,748 304 15,631 - 1,226 37 710 - - 17,908
Louisiana 6,859 - 6,032 10 781 20 410 2 - 7,255
Maine 4,726 - 2,926 - 1,336 1,811 382 1 - 6,456
Maryland 7,242 - 4,271 - 1,420 16 2,059 - - 7,766
Massachusetts 22,538 - 21,195 - 1,765 - 732 273 - 23,965
Michigan 26,932 590 23,405 - 4,036 166 1,197 28 - 29,422
Minnesota 6,647 - 4,629 - 922 174 1,641 16 - 7,382
Mississippi 8,136 377 5,737 17 1,279 1,510 1,088 11 - 10,019
Missouri 4,449 108 2,249 - 1,398 647 1,456 10 - 5,868
Montana 3,777 13 3,683 6 187 24 107 1 - 4,021
Nebraska 2,376 1 1,917 - 323 10 253 11 - 2,515
Nevada 5,016 76 4,146 - 1,034 18 365 - - 5,639
New Hampshire 1,182 28 1,010 - 83 45 119 - - 1,285
New Jersey 3,655 79 2,592 - 525 46 640 3 - 3,885
New Mexico 7,050 219 5,770 - 952 1,982 258 - - 9,181
New York 59,126 3,301 56,595 16,851 5,289 577 2,170 12 - 84,795
North Carolina 22,399 970 19,916 193 1,104 158 999 4 - 23,344
North Dakota 1,614 34 1,241 - 137 462 50 - - 1,924
Ohio 23,691 371 10,311 - 11,319 1,580 4,240 25 - 27,846
Oklahoma 14,685 257 10,684 - 1,956 5,010 792 4 - 18,703
Oregon 11,487 69 5,558 6,053 1,381 220 769 27 - 14,077
Pennsylvania 4,582 169 437 12 2,036 45 2,060 43 - 4,802
Puerto Rico 3,572 457 2,340 32 847 1,808 92 1 - 5,577
Rhode Island 2,743 37 1,562 67 366 1,031 132 - - 3,195
South Carolina 14,263 321 8,216 4 6,434 1,041 741 28 - 16,785
South Dakota 1,570 - 1,423 - 152 40 84 1 - 1,700
Tennessee 8,687 129 2,198 - 5,096 463 2,307 100 - 10,293
Texas 65,116 983 55,117 3 7,422 323 6,580 36 1 70,465
Utah 9,694 53 2,567 142 3,708 3,536 1,651 14 - 11,671
Vermont 530 11 4 - 396 2 126 - - 539
Virginia 5,658 131 3,800 3 1,562 95 714 3 - 6,308
Washington 3,967 - 3,050 - 859 - 464 33 - 4,406
West Virginia 6,116 332 2,513 - 4,905 3,983 239 - - 11,972
Wisconsin 4,177 63 2,774 - 645 24 934 50 - 4,490
Wyoming 992 3 763 5 23 345 46 - - 1,185
National 618,399 12,287 470,297 36,904 101,961 39,652 57,963 953 31 720,048

Table 3–8 Maltreatment Types of Victims (Categories), 2020
Medical Psychological Total
Neglect Neglect Physical Abuse Maltreatment Sexual Abuse Sex Trafficking Unknown Maltreatment
State Percent Percent Other Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Types Percent
Alabama 0.7 43.2 - 49.7 0.2 19.0 0.0 - 112.8
Alaska 3.5 71.5 - 21.5 33.3 9.2 - - 139.0
Arizona - 91.7 - 8.4 0.1 3.8 - - 104.0
Arkansas 2.4 69.3 0.3 19.5 1.9 19.3 0.1 - 113.0
California 0.1 89.0 0.6 6.9 9.0 5.4 0.1 - 111.0
Colorado 1.2 83.4 - 10.1 1.9 8.9 - 0.2 105.8
Connecticut 2.6 85.3 - 5.5 30.6 5.9 - - 129.9
Delaware - 31.8 9.7 16.6 37.9 12.4 - - 108.3
District of Columbia - 89.4 - 13.3 - 2.3 1.6 0.1 106.7
Florida 3.4 59.7 41.8 8.4 1.0 8.2 - - 122.5
Georgia 2.8 61.2 - 12.8 25.8 8.8 0.4 - 111.8
Hawaii 0.8 21.6 87.7 9.6 2.1 7.0 1.2 - 129.9
Idaho 0.3 54.3 - 43.2 - 8.2 0.1 - 106.1
Illinois 1.9 76.7 0.2 17.3 0.2 13.5 - - 109.8
Indiana - 86.6 - 7.0 - 11.2 0.1 - 105.1
Iowa 0.8 87.0 - 10.4 0.9 6.3 0.1 - 105.4
Kansas 2.8 43.4 0.0 25.2 15.9 20.6 0.4 - 108.4
Kentucky 1.8 93.3 - 7.3 0.2 4.2 - - 106.9
Louisiana - 87.9 0.1 11.4 0.3 6.0 0.0 - 105.8
Maine - 61.9 - 28.3 38.3 8.1 0.0 - 136.6
Maryland - 59.0 - 19.6 0.2 28.4 - - 107.2
Massachusetts - 94.0 - 7.8 - 3.2 1.2 - 106.3
Michigan 2.2 86.9 - 15.0 0.6 4.4 0.1 - 109.2
Minnesota - 69.6 - 13.9 2.6 24.7 0.2 - 111.1
Mississippi 4.6 70.5 0.2 15.7 18.6 13.4 0.1 - 123.1
Missouri 2.4 50.6 - 31.4 14.5 32.7 0.2 - 131.9
Montana 0.3 97.5 0.2 5.0 0.6 2.8 0.0 - 106.5
Nebraska 0.0 80.7 - 13.6 0.4 10.6 0.5 - 105.9
Nevada 1.5 82.7 - 20.6 0.4 7.3 - - 112.4
New Hampshire 2.4 85.4 - 7.0 3.8 10.1 - - 108.7
New Jersey 2.2 70.9 - 14.4 1.3 17.5 0.1 - 106.3
New Mexico 3.1 81.8 - 13.5 28.1 3.7 - - 130.2
New York 5.6 95.7 28.5 8.9 1.0 3.7 0.0 - 143.4
North Carolina 4.3 88.9 0.9 4.9 0.7 4.5 0.0 - 104.2
North Dakota 2.1 76.9 - 8.5 28.6 3.1 - - 119.2
Ohio 1.6 43.5 - 47.8 6.7 17.9 0.1 - 117.5
Oklahoma 1.8 72.8 - 13.3 34.1 5.4 0.0 - 127.4
Oregon 0.6 48.4 52.7 12.0 1.9 6.7 0.2 - 122.5
Pennsylvania 3.7 9.5 0.3 44.4 1.0 45.0 0.9 - 104.8
Puerto Rico 12.8 65.5 0.9 23.7 50.6 2.6 0.0 - 156.1
Rhode Island 1.3 56.9 2.4 13.3 37.6 4.8 - - 116.5
South Carolina 2.3 57.6 0.0 45.1 7.3 5.2 0.2 - 117.7
South Dakota - 90.6 - 9.7 2.5 5.4 0.1 - 108.3
Tennessee 1.5 25.3 - 58.7 5.3 26.6 1.2 - 118.5
Texas 1.5 84.6 0.0 11.4 0.5 10.1 0.1 0.0 108.2
Utah 0.5 26.5 1.5 38.3 36.5 17.0 0.1 - 120.4
Vermont 2.1 0.8 - 74.7 0.4 23.8 - - 101.7
Virginia 2.3 67.2 0.1 27.6 1.7 12.6 0.1 - 111.5
Washington - 76.9 - 21.7 - 11.7 0.8 - 111.1
West Virginia 5.4 41.1 - 80.2 65.1 3.9 - - 195.7
Wisconsin 1.5 66.4 - 15.4 0.6 22.4 1.2 - 107.5
Wyoming 0.3 76.9 0.5 2.3 34.8 4.6 - - 119.5
National 2.0 76.1 6.0 16.5 6.4 9.4 0.2 0.0 116.4

3–9 Victims of Sex Trafficking by Sex and Age, 2020
Age Male Female Unknown Total Total Percent

<1 - 2 - 2 0.2
1 2 4 - 6 0.6
2 2 1 - 3 0.3
3 1 2 - 3 0.3
4 2 3 - 5 0.5
5 1 4 - 5 0.5
6 5 7 - 12 1.3
7 - 7 - 7 0.7
8 5 6 - 11 1.2
9 - 11 - 11 1.2
10 2 18 1 21 2.2
11 5 36 - 41 4.3
12 7 38 - 45 4.7
13 4 60 - 64 6.7
14 21 123 1 145 15.2
15 13 151 1 165 17.3
16 16 196 2 214 22.5
17 16 173 - 189 19.8
18 2 2 - 4 0.4
19–23 - - - - -
Unknown age - - - - -
National 104 844 5 953 100.0
National Percent 10.9 88.6 0.5 - -
Based on data from 35 states.

Table 3–10 Infants With Prenatal Substance Exposure by Submission Type, 2020
Screened-in IPSE With
Screened-in IPSE With Screened-in IPSE With Alcohol Abuse and
Alcohol Abuse Child Drug Abuse Child Risk Drug Abuse Child Risk
State Risk Factor Factor Factor Total Screened-in IPSE Screened-out IPSE Total IPSE
Alabama 25 564 8 597 1 598
Alaska - - 82 82 121 203
Arizona 9 452 9 470 197 667
Arkansas - 511 1 512 31 543
California 4 526 485 1,015 39 1,054
Colorado - 27 - 27 458 485
Connecticut - 2 - 2 87 89
Delaware - 24 4 28 20 48
District of Columbia 1 165 - 166 2 168
Florida - 1 - 1 8 9
Georgia 73 3,588 108 3,769 125 3,894
Hawaii - 25 2 27 - 27
Idaho 1 - - 1 17 18
Illinois - - - - - -
Indiana 4 625 5 634 33 667
Iowa - 51 - 51 16 67
Kansas - - 48 48 22 70
Kentucky 15 1,128 7 1,150 423 1,573
Louisiana 4 1,952 - 1,956 54 2,010
Maine 2 108 5 115 - 115
Maryland - 6 - 6 - 6
Massachusetts - 66 1,893 1,959 237 2,196
Michigan - 6,337 33 6,370 1,662 8,032
Minnesota 19 1,666 - 1,685 204 1,889
Mississippi - 51 - 51 226 277
Missouri 1 13 - 14 1,050 1,064
Montana - 8 - 8 - 8
Nebraska 1 192 3 196 18 214
Nevada - 70 615 685 - 685
New Hampshire 1 75 - 76 - 76
New Jersey 3 435 6 444 - 444
New Mexico 2 272 - 274 143 417
New York 4 738 13 755 - 755
North Carolina 4 221 1 226 884 1,110
North Dakota - - - - - -
Ohio 11 5,816 57 5,884 1,123 7,007
Oklahoma 24 2,114 80 2,218 29 2,247
Oregon - 20 - 20 - 20
Pennsylvania - - - - - -
Puerto Rico - 10 1 11 1 12
Rhode Island - - 101 101 1 102
South Carolina 3 446 2 451 - 451
South Dakota 2 27 1 30 51 81
Tennessee - 213 - 213 - 213
Texas 88 1,215 - 1,303 13 1,316
Utah 1 405 1 407 8 415
Vermont - - - - 239 239
Virginia - - 15 15 77 92
Washington - 290 - 290 65 355
West Virginia - 712 - 712 - 712
Wisconsin - 1 - 1 68 69
Wyoming - 12 - 12 - 12
National 302 31,180 3,586 35,068 7,753 42,821
National Percent N/A N/A N/A 81.9 18.1 100.0
Percent of Screened-in IPSE 0.9 88.9 10.2 100.0 N/A N/A
Reporting States 24 43 27 48 36 49

Table 3–11 Screened-in Infants With Prenatal Substance Exposure
Who Have a Plan of Safe Care, 2020
Screened-in IPSE Who Screened-in IPSE Who Have
State Screened-in IPSE Have a Plan of Safe Care a Plan of Safe Care Percent
Alabama 597 299 50.1
Alaska - - -
Arizona - - -
Arkansas 512 468 91.4
California - - -
Colorado 27 2 7.4
Connecticut - - -
Delaware 28 28 100.0
District of Columbia 166 145 87.3
Florida - - -
Georgia 3,769 2,656 70.5
Hawaii - - -
Idaho - - -
Illinois - - -
Indiana 634 239 37.7
Iowa 51 51 100.0
Kansas 48 8 16.7
Kentucky 1,150 228 19.8
Louisiana 1,956 1,019 52.1
Maine - - -
Maryland - - -
Massachusetts 1,959 1,329 67.8
Michigan 6,370 6,101 95.8
Minnesota 1,685 1,414 83.9
Mississippi - - -
Missouri - - -
Montana - - -
Nebraska 196 20 10.2
Nevada - - -
New Hampshire - - -
New Jersey - - -
New Mexico 274 4 1.5
New York 755 629 83.3
North Carolina 226 152 67.3
North Dakota - - -
Ohio 5,884 5,316 90.3
Oklahoma 2,218 71 3.2
Oregon - - -
Pennsylvania - - -
Puerto Rico 11 11 100.0
Rhode Island - - -
South Dakota 30 13 43.3
Tennessee 213 212 99.5
Texas 1,303 1,303 100.0
Utah 407 143 35.1
Vermont - - -
Virginia 15 15 100.0
Washington 290 88 30.3
West Virginia - - -
Wisconsin - - -
Wyoming - - -
National 30,774 21,964 71.4
Reporting States 27 27 -

Table 3–12 Screened-in Infants With Prenatal Substance Exposure
Who Have a Referral to Appropriate Services, 2020
Screened-in IPSE Who Have a
Screened-in IPSE Who Have a Referral to Appropriate Services
State Screened-in IPSE Referral to Appropriate Services Percent
Alabama 597 337 56.4
Alaska - - -
Arizona - - -
Arkansas 512 466 91.0
California 1,015 123 12.1
Colorado 27 3 11.1
Connecticut - - -
Delaware 28 12 42.9
Florida - - -
Georgia 3,769 2,656 70.5
Hawaii - - -
Idaho - - -
Illinois - - -
Indiana 634 57 9.0
Iowa 51 47 92.2
Kansas 48 8 16.7
Kentucky 1,150 249 21.7
Louisiana 1,956 1,225 62.6
Maine - - -
Maryland - - -
Michigan 6,370 4,645 72.9
Minnesota 1,685 369 21.9
Mississippi - - -
Missouri - - -
Montana - - -
Nebraska 196 136 69.4
Nevada - - -
New Hampshire - - -
New Jersey - - -
New Mexico 274 4 1.5
New York 755 591 78.3
North Carolina 226 48 21.2
North Dakota - - -
Ohio 5,884 4,575 77.8
Oklahoma 2,218 1,382 62.3
Oregon - - -
Pennsylvania - - -
Rhode Island - - -
Tennessee 213 212 99.5
Texas 1,303 1,260 96.7
Utah 407 143 35.1
Vermont - - -
Virginia 15 14 93.3
West Virginia - - -
Wisconsin - - -
Wyoming - - -
National 31,789 20,648 65.0

Table 3–13 Victims With Caregiver Risk Factors, 2020 (continues next page)
Domestic Financial Inadequate Public Any Caregiver

State Victims Alcohol Abuse Violence Drug Abuse Problem Housing Assistance Disability
Alabama 11,663 - - 4,798 - 645 - 796
Alaska 3,212 1,446 1,384 869 146 118 96 475
Arizona 9,954 1,300 4,048 4,449 4,960 2,972 - 454
Arkansas 9,241 - 937 263 1,229 484 256 378
California 60,317 - - - - - 13,345 -
Colorado - - - - - - - -
Connecticut 6,346 227 1,982 238 274 236 149 127
Delaware 1,200 171 497 332 385 192 918 427
District of Columbia 1,568 509 312 509 - 181 - 761
Florida 28,268 - 11,256 715 8,812 1,894 3,226 -
Georgia 8,690 - 341 550 - - 1,139 610
Hawaii 1,294 178 384 645 - 98 - -
Idaho 1,958 120 - 305 - 159 - 206
Illinois - - - - - - - -
Indiana 22,648 929 2,396 4,474 3,321 1,614 4,433 1,547
Iowa 10,600 - - - 397 255 1,222 -
Kansas - - - - - - - -
Kentucky 16,748 2,454 8,784 8,370 - 2,964 - 4,432
Louisiana - - - - - - - -
Maine 4,726 791 968 1,217 - 277 3,556 107
Maryland 7,242 256 357 510 - - - -
Massachusetts 22,538 10,893 10,042 10,893 - 1,170 - -
Michigan 26,932 4,220 8,816 6,746 566 1,347 18,411 1,649
Minnesota 6,647 915 1,999 1,505 740 788 560 1,136
Mississippi 8,136 537 1,025 2,974 890 1,387 2,536 -
Missouri 4,449 394 391 1,040 675 812 684 726
Montana 3,777 246 - 770 - - 1,420 -
Nebraska 2,376 439 106 779 70 - 1,924 889
Nevada 5,016 1,991 1,066 2,090 839 483 - -
New Hampshire 1,182 105 502 408 - 88 1,001 422
New Jersey 3,655 452 880 960 592 318 - 106
New Mexico 7,050 1,613 155 2,083 457 228 228 -
New York 59,126 11,047 14,811 12,691 - - - -
North Carolina 22,399 1,451 3,236 3,964 - 793 899 1,293
North Dakota 1,614 - - - - - 791 -
Ohio 23,691 - 6,036 12,180 2,973 3,052 - 7,245
Oklahoma 14,685 2,670 5,780 5,940 856 - 6,058 519
Oregon 11,487 5,152 4,614 5,226 2,065 969 - 266
Pennsylvania 4,582 - - 116 - - - 104
Puerto Rico 3,572 475 1,198 514 1,730 372 192 1,551
Rhode Island 2,743 425 1,340 479 344 108 1,055 -
South Carolina 14,263 - - - 2,224 2,165 4,808 656
South Dakota 1,570 557 475 722 521 348 611 132
Tennessee 8,687 - - 1,169 - 315 - -
Texas 65,116 3,544 23,645 13,651 3,387 3,137 12,040 5,951
Utah 9,694 - 3,045 - 1,295 688 2,021 -
Vermont - - - - - - - -
Virginia 5,658 - 1,055 - - - - -
Washington 3,967 1,114 802 1,803 710 646 - -
West Virginia 6,116 495 - 3,513 - - - 123
Wisconsin 4,177 126 565 293 171 198 227 378
Wyoming 992 318 308 462 237 156 91 184
National Count of
Victims with the
Caregiver Risk
Factor - 57,560 125,538 121,215 40,866 31,657 83,897 33,650
National Count of
Victims in Reporting
States 561,572 364,604 437,995 459,426 311,687 387,389 356,622 315,845
Reporting States 47 34 37 41 28 36 29 30

Table 3–13 Victims With Caregiver Risk Factors, 2020
Domestic Financial Inadequate Public Any Caregiver
Alcohol Abuse Violence Drug Abuse Problem Housing Assistance Disability
State Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent
Alabama - - 41.1 - 5.5 - 6.8
Alaska 45.0 43.1 27.1 4.5 3.7 3.0 14.8
Arizona 13.1 40.7 44.7 49.8 29.9 - 4.6
Arkansas - 10.1 2.8 13.3 5.2 2.8 4.1
California - - - - - 22.1 -
Colorado - - - - - - -
Connecticut 3.6 31.2 3.8 4.3 3.7 2.3 2.0
Delaware 14.3 41.4 27.7 32.1 16.0 76.5 35.6
District of Columbia 32.5 19.9 32.5 - 11.5 - 48.5
Florida - 39.8 2.5 31.2 6.7 11.4 -
Georgia - 3.9 6.3 - - 13.1 7.0
Hawaii 13.8 29.7 49.8 - 7.6 - -
Idaho 6.1 - 15.6 - 8.1 - 10.5
Illinois - - - - - - -
Indiana 4.1 10.6 19.8 14.7 7.1 19.6 6.8
Iowa - - - 3.7 2.4 11.5 -
Kansas - - - - - - -
Kentucky 14.7 52.4 50.0 - 17.7 - 26.5
Louisiana - - - - - - -
Maine 16.7 20.5 25.8 - 5.9 75.2 2.3
Maryland 3.5 4.9 7.0 - - - -
Massachusetts 48.3 44.6 48.3 - 5.2 - -
Michigan 15.7 32.7 25.0 2.1 5.0 68.4 6.1
Minnesota 13.8 30.1 22.6 11.1 11.9 8.4 17.1
Mississippi 6.6 12.6 36.6 10.9 17.0 31.2 -
Missouri 8.9 8.8 23.4 15.2 18.3 15.4 16.3
Montana 6.5 - 20.4 - - 37.6 -
Nebraska 18.5 4.5 32.8 2.9 - 81.0 37.4
Nevada 39.7 21.3 41.7 16.7 9.6 - -
New Hampshire 8.9 42.5 34.5 - 7.4 84.7 35.7
New Jersey 12.4 24.1 26.3 16.2 8.7 - 2.9
New Mexico 22.9 2.2 29.5 6.5 3.2 3.2 -
New York 18.7 25.0 21.5 - - - -
North Carolina 6.5 14.4 17.7 - 3.5 4.0 5.8
North Dakota - - - - - 49.0 -
Ohio - 25.5 51.4 12.5 12.9 - 30.6
Oklahoma 18.2 39.4 40.4 5.8 - 41.3 3.5
Oregon 44.9 40.2 45.5 18.0 8.4 - 2.3
Pennsylvania - - 2.5 - - - 2.3
Puerto Rico 13.3 33.5 14.4 48.4 10.4 5.4 43.4
Rhode Island 15.5 48.9 17.5 12.5 3.9 38.5 -
South Carolina - - - 15.6 15.2 33.7 4.6
South Dakota 35.5 30.3 46.0 33.2 22.2 38.9 8.4
Tennessee - - 13.5 - 3.6 - -
Texas 5.4 36.3 21.0 5.2 4.8 18.5 9.1
Utah - 31.4 - 13.4 7.1 20.8 -
Vermont - - - - - - -
Virginia - 18.6 - - - - -
Washington 28.1 20.2 45.4 17.9 16.3 - -
West Virginia 8.1 - 57.4 - - - 2.0
Wisconsin 3.0 13.5 7.0 4.1 4.7 5.4 9.0
Wyoming 32.1 31.0 46.6 23.9 15.7 9.2 18.5
National Count of
Victims with the
Caregiver Risk
Factor 15.8 28.7 26.4 13.1 8.2 23.5 10.7
National Count of
Victims in Reporting
States - - - - - - -
Reporting States - - - - - - -

Table 3–14 Victims by Relationship to Their Perpetrators, 2020
Reported Reported
Perpetrator Victims Relationships Relationships Percent
PARENT - - -
Father Only - 138,803 23.6
Father and Nonparent - 6,910 1.2
Mother Only - 221,372 37.6
Mother and Nonparent - 37,064 6.3
Two Parents of known sex - 122,015 20.7
Three Parents of known sex - 955 0.2
Two Parents of known sex and Nonparent - 5,230 0.9
One or more Parents of Unknown Sex - 1,292 0.2
Total Parents - 533,641 90.6
NONPARENT - - -
Child Daycare Provider(s) - 2,013 0.3
Foster Parent(s) - 1,990 0.3
Friend(s) and Neighbor(s) - 3,961 0.7
Group Home and Residential Facility Staff - 1,080 0.2
Legal Guardian(s) - 1,726 0.3
Other Professional(s) - 1,187 0.2
Relative(s) - 32,037 5.4
Unmarried Partner(s) of Parent - 19,370 3.3
Other(s) - 18,966 3.2
More Than One Nonparental Perpetrator - 2,504 0.4
Total Nonparents - 84,834 14.4
UNKNOWN - 16,464 2.8
National 589,141 634,939 107.8

Fatalities
CHAPTER 4
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 are 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 offices
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 offices. 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 reflects the federal fiscal 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” field in the NCANDS Child File indicates the
day, month, and year in which the child died.
Number of Child Fatalities

For FFY 2020, a national estimate of 1,750 children died from abuse and neglect at a rate
of 2.38 per 100,000 children in the population. The 2020 national estimate is a 1.2 percent
increase from the 2016 national estimate of 1,730.22 (See exhibit 4–A and related notes on
how the national estimate is calculated.) Due to the relatively low frequency of child fatali-
ties, the national rate and national estimate are sensitive to which states report data and
22 The percent change is calculated using the national estimates for FFY 2016 and FFY 2020.
Child Maltreatment 2020 chAPter 4: Fatalities 54

changes in the child population estimates produced by the U.S. Census Bureau. Detailed
explanations for data fluctuations 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
Exhibit 4–A Child Fatality Rates per 100,000 Children, 2016–2020

Child Fatalities National Fatality National Estimate/
Child Population of from Reporting Rate Per 100,000 Child Population of Rounded Number
Year Reporting States Reporting States States Children all 52 States of Child Fatalities
2016 50 73,444,585 1,708 2.33 74,392,850 1,730
2017 51 74,031,013 1,691 2.28 74,283,872 1,690
2018 52 73,977,376 1,765 2.39 73,977,376 1,770
2019 52 73,661,476 1,825 2.48 73,661,476 1,830
2020 51 72,026,671 1,713 2.38 73,368,194 1,750
Data are from the Child File and Agency File. National fatality rates per 100,000 children are calculated by dividing the number of child fatalities
by the population of reporting states and multiplying the result by 100,000.
If fewer than 52 states reported data, 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. If 52 states reported data, the national estimate of
child fatalities is the number of reported child fatalities rounded to the nearest 10.
At the state level for FFY 2020, 51 states reported 1,713 fatalities. Of those states, 46 reported
case-level data on 1,480 fatalities and 28 reported aggregate data on 233 fatalities. Fatality
rates by state range from 0.00 to 5.49 per 100,000 children in the population. (See table 4–1
and related notes.) The number of reported fatalities in the Child File and Agency File
decreased from 1,825 for FFY 2019 to 1,713 for FFY 2020. All states are required to confirm
fatality counts during data submission and validation. Thirty-two states reported fewer child
fatalities due to maltreatment in 2020 than in 2019. Seventeen states reported more child
fatalities due to maltreatment in 2020 than in 2019. Not every state with the largest increases
(10 or more) had an explanation for the increases (appendix D), but some provided the follow-
ing: some deaths were for prior years and were pending in the court system; murder-suicides;
neglectful supervision, including children left in hot cars and unsafe sleep deaths combined
with substance abuse; and one state began reporting children who died during the prior year(s)
but the deaths were determined as due to maltreatment during the current reporting period.23
The number of child fatalities in the Child File and Agency File fluctuated during the past
5 years, which is partly due to the number of states reporting, the reasons mentioned above,
resubmissions, and other reasons which may be in state commentaries for prior years. (See
table 4–2 and related notes.) States were asked to provide additional information about
child fatality reviews during the COVID-19 pandemic. Most states provided comments and
explained how reviews continued, with many using virtual formats. Readers are encouraged
to review the fatality comments provided by states in Appendix D.
Child Fatality Demographics

FFY 2020 data show that 68.0 percent (67.8%) of all child fatalities are younger than 3 years
old. Close to one-half (46.4%) of child fatalities are younger than 1 year old and died at a rate of
23.03 per 100,000 children in the population of the same age. This is 3.6 times the fatality rate
for 1-year-old children (6.49 per 100,000 children in the population of the same age). The child
23 New York, see Appendix D, State Commentary.

fatality rates mostly decrease with age. As shown in exhibit 4–B, 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.)
Exhibit 4–B Child Fatalities by Age, 2020

Children <1 year old died from abuse and neglect at more than three times the rate of
children who were 1 year old.
Boys have a higher child fatality rate than girls at 2.99 per 100,000 boys in the population,
compared with 2.05 per 100,000 girls in the population. (See exhibit 4–C and related notes.)
Exhibit 4–C Child Fatalities by Sex, 2020
Child Fatalities Rate per

Sex Child Population Child Fatalities Child Fatalities Percent 100,000 Children
Boys 29,732,915 890 60.1 2.99
Girls 28,490,819 584 39.5 2.05
Unknown - 6 0.4 -
National 58,223,734 1,480 100.0 N/A
Based on data from 46 states. Data are from the Child File. There are no population data for unknown sex and therefore no rates. Dashes are
inserted into cells without any data included in this analysis.
Nearly ninety percent (88.1%) of child fatalities are one of three races: White (38.7%), African-
American (34.9%), or Hispanic (14.5%). Using the number of victims and the population data
to create rates highlights some racial disparity. The rate of African-American child fatalities
(5.90 per 100,000 African-American children) is 3.1 times greater than the rate of White child
fatalities (1.90 per 100,000 White children) and 3.6 times greater than the rate of Hispanic child
fatalities (1.65 per 100,000 Hispanic children). American Indian or Alaska Native children had
the second highest rate at 3.85 and children of two or more races had a rate of 3.27 per 100,000
children of their respective races. (See exhibit 4–D and related notes.)

Exhibit 4–D Child Fatalities by Race or Ethnicity, 2020
Race and Ethnicity Child Population Child Fatalities Child Fatalities Percent 100,000 Children
SINGLE RACE - - - -
African-American 8,549,229 504 34.9 5.90
American Indian or Alaska Native 467,907 18 1.2 3.85
Asian 2,427,571 8 0.6 0.33
Hispanic 12,705,582 210 14.5 1.65
Pacific Islander 97,594 2 0.1 2.05
Unknown - 64 4.4 N/A
White 29,469,031 560 38.7 1.90
MULTIPLE RACE - - - -
Two or More Races 2,447,338 80 5.5 3.27
National 56,164,252 1,446 100.0 N/A
Based on data from 44 states. Data are from the Child File. The multiple race category is defined as any combination of two or more race categories.
Counts associated with specific 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. This 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
As discussed in chapter 3, the Child Maltreatment report includes only those maltreatment
types that have a disposition of substantiated or indicated by the CPS response. It is important
to note that while these maltreatment
Exhibit 4–E Maltreatment Types
types likely contributed to the cause
of Child Fatalities, 2020
of death, NCANDS does not have a
field for collecting the official cause Maltreatment Types
Maltreatment Type Child Fatalities Maltreatment Types Percent
of death. Of the children who died,
Medical Neglect - 126 8.5
73.7 percent suffered neglect and Neglect - 1,091 73.7
42.6 percent suffered physical abuse Other - 5 0.3
either exclusively or in combination Physical Abuse - 630 42.6
with another maltreatment type. (See Psychological

Maltreatment
- 21 1.4
exhibit 4–E and related notes.) Sexual Abuse - 14 0.9
Sex Trafficking - - -
Risk Factors
Unknown - 1 0.1
National 1,480 1,888 N/A
Risk factors are characteristics of a
Based on data from 46 states. Data are from the Child File. A child may have suffered from
child or caregiver that may increase more than one type of maltreatment and therefore, the total number of reported maltreatments
the likelihood of child maltreatment. exceeds the number of fatalities, and the total percentage of reported maltreatments exceeds 100.0
percent. The percentages are calculated against the number of child fatalities in the reporting
Risk factors can be difficult to accu- states. Dashes are inserted into cells without any data included in this analysis.
rately 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’ definitions of these risk factors.
Twenty-seven states report that 45 (5.7%) of child fatalities in reporting states had a caregiver
with a risk factor of alcohol abuse and 34 states report that 218 (17.6%) of child fatalities in
reporting states had a caregiver with a risk factor of drug abuse. (See exhibit 4–F and related
notes.)

Exhibit 4–F Child Fatalities with Selected Caregiver Risk Factors, 2020
Child Fatalities With a
Child Fatalities from Child Fatalities With a Caregiver Risk Factor
Caregiver Risk Factor Reporting States Reporting States Caregiver Risk Factor Percent
Alcohol Abuse 27 785 45 5.7
Drug Abuse 34 1,241 218 17.6
Data are 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.
States are excluded from these analyses if they are not able to differentiate between alcohol abuse and drug abuse caregiver risk factors and report
both risk factors for the same children in both caregiver risk factor categories. If a child is reported both with and without the caregiver risk factor,
the child is counted once with the caregiver risk factor.
Perpetrator Relationship
The FFY 2020 data show that most perpetrators are caregivers of their victims. More than
80.0 percent (80.6%) of child fatalities involved parents acting alone, together, or with other
individuals. More than 15 percent (15.3%) of fatalities did not have a parental relationship to their
perpetrator. Similarly to all victims, the largest categories in the nonparent group are relative(s)
(5.3%) and “other(s)” (3.6%). 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, nonrelated child, fos-
ter sibling, babysitter, household staff, clergy, and school personnel. Child fatalities with unknown
perpetrator relationship data accounted for 4.2 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 services. In the 29
states that reported fatalities and family preservation services in table 4–5, Child Fatalities
Who Received Family Preservation Services Within the Previous 5 Years, 80 of the 904
Child File fatalities and 8 of the 51 Agency File fatalities had preservation services. Not all
states that report child fatalities are able to report family reunification services. In the 36
states that reported fatalities and family reunification services, table 4–6 shows that 32 of the
1,171 Child File fatalities and 12 of the 208 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.) Not all states are able to report these two services, and the national percentage
is sensitive to which states report data.

General
quality issues. Exclusion rules are listed with the relevant table notes below.
■ All analyses use a unique count of fatalities (child fatality is counted once).
■ Rates are per 100,000 children in the population.
■ 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.
Table 4–1 Child Fatalities by Submission Type, 2020

■ Data are 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, 2016–2020

Table 4–3 Child Fatalities by Age, 2020

■ There are no population data for unknown age and therefore, no rates.
Table 4–4 Child Fatalities by Relationship to Their Perpetrators, 2020

■ 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 fields.
More information may be found in Appendix D.
■ The relationship categories listed under nonparent perpetrator include any perpetrator rela-
tionship that was not identified as an adoptive parent, a biological parent, or a stepparent.
■ 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.

■ The unknown relationship category includes victims with an unknown perpetrator.
■ Some states were not able to collect and report on group home and residential facility staff
perpetrators due to system limitations or jurisdictional issues.

Table 4–5 Child Fatalities Who Received Family Preservation Services Within
the Previous 5 Years, 2020
■ The Child File and Agency File data are presented separately.
Table 4–6 Child Fatalities Who Were Reunited With Their Families Within the
Previous 5 Years, 2020

Table 4–1 Child Fatalities by Submission Type, 2020
Child Fatalities Reported in Child Fatalities Reported in Child Fatality Rates per
State Child Population the Child File the Agency File Total Child Fatalities 100,000 Children
Alabama 1,087,283 47 - 47 4.32
Alaska 178,731 - 2 2 1.12
Arizona 1,646,423 18 - 18 1.09
Arkansas 699,714 30 - 30 4.29
California 8,791,234 - 143 143 1.63
Colorado 1,250,035 24 - 24 1.92
Connecticut 718,952 8 1 9 1.25
Delaware 204,656 5 - 5 2.44
District of Columbia 129,588 4 0 4 3.09
Florida 4,250,732 101 - 101 2.38
Georgia 2,499,950 83 2 85 3.40
Hawaii 295,818 0 - 0 0.00
Idaho 451,043 5 5 10 2.22
Illinois 2,777,968 100 2 102 3.67
Indiana 1,566,439 56 - 56 3.57
Iowa 725,559 9 - 9 1.24
Kansas 696,746 10 0 10 1.44
Kentucky 1,001,917 6 3 9 0.90
Louisiana 1,081,280 18 - 18 1.66
Maine 248,168 1 0 1 0.40
Maryland 1,333,919 32 18 50 3.75
Massachusetts - - - - -
Michigan 2,126,813 43 - 43 2.02
Minnesota 1,301,219 21 0 21 1.61
Mississippi 693,133 38 - 38 5.48
Missouri 1,371,429 41 3 44 3.21
Montana 229,683 5 0 5 2.18
Nebraska 475,015 2 0 2 0.42
Nevada 697,580 10 4 14 2.01
New Hampshire 253,134 1 1 2 0.79
New Jersey 1,934,535 16 1 17 0.88
New Mexico 472,491 10 3 13 2.75
New York 3,988,354 105 - 105 2.63
North Carolina 2,306,400 - 1 1 0.04
North Dakota 181,629 5 0 5 2.75
Ohio 2,568,641 94 - 94 3.66
Oklahoma 953,520 42 0 42 4.40
Oregon 860,778 - 17 17 1.97
Pennsylvania 2,620,757 67 - 67 2.56
Puerto Rico 546,081 5 - 5 0.92
Rhode Island 201,849 2 - 2 0.99
South Carolina 1,117,925 24 12 36 3.22
South Dakota 218,479 12 - 12 5.49
Tennessee 1,513,401 34 - 34 2.25
Texas 7,435,132 255 0 255 3.43
Utah 929,276 6 - 6 0.65
Vermont 113,166 0 - 0 0.00
Virginia 1,866,420 39 - 39 2.09
Washington 1,665,794 - 14 14 0.84
West Virginia 356,267 11 1 12 3.37
Wisconsin 1,258,524 32 - 32 2.54
Wyoming 133,091 3 0 3 2.25
National 72,026,671 1,480 233 1,713 2.38
Reporting States - 46 28 51 -

Table 4–2 Child Fatalities, 2016–2020
State 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Alabama 26 28 43 34 47
Alaska 1 2 2 1 2
Arizona 48 35 48 33 18
Arkansas 42 37 44 35 30
California 137 147 145 153 143
Colorado 37 35 40 25 24
Connecticut 5 11 8 4 9
Delaware 0 4 4 13 5
District of Columbia 3 4 5 3 4
Florida 110 101 111 114 101
Georgia 97 94 86 68 85
Hawaii 4 4 1 4 0
Idaho 3 10 3 3 10
Illinois 64 74 70 106 102
Indiana 70 78 80 116 56
Iowa 12 19 16 25 9
Kansas 10 14 9 16 10
Kentucky 15 10 6 12 9
Louisiana 41 25 25 24 18
Maine - - 3 3 1
Maryland 32 41 40 55 50
Massachusetts 8 14 14 13 -
Michigan 86 51 49 63 43
Minnesota 28 24 30 17 21
Mississippi 41 40 30 35 38
Missouri 29 33 36 46 44
Montana 0 4 2 2 5
Nebraska 7 1 0 5 2
Nevada 13 21 19 20 14
New Hampshire 4 2 0 2 2
New Jersey 21 13 18 19 17
New Mexico 11 16 12 11 13
New York 95 127 118 69 105
North Carolina 32 18 14 5 1
North Dakota 4 1 8 6 5
Ohio 66 73 106 79 94
Oklahoma 31 21 47 23 42
Oregon 19 30 26 23 17
Pennsylvania 47 42 45 54 67
Puerto Rico - 6 3 5 5
Rhode Island 4 5 1 3 2
South Carolina 22 28 39 60 36
South Dakota 4 5 3 9 12
Tennessee 41 33 47 43 34
Texas 217 186 200 229 255
Utah 12 13 10 11 6
Vermont 0 0 1 1 0
Virginia 45 41 37 49 39
Washington 15 18 28 25 14
West Virginia 20 17 8 17 12
Wisconsin 25 31 24 34 32
Wyoming 4 4 1 0 3
National 1,708 1,691 1,765 1,825 1,713

Table 4–3 Child Fatalities by Age, 2020
Age Child Population Child Fatalities Child Fatalities Percent 100,000 Children
<1 2,982,424 687 46.4 23.03
1 3,018,680 196 13.2 6.49
2 3,081,767 120 8.1 3.89
3 3,126,811 101 6.8 3.23
4 3,210,326 64 4.3 1.99
5 3,236,417 61 4.1 1.88
6 3,225,797 27 1.8 0.84
7 3,215,877 25 1.7 0.78
8 3,222,471 10 0.7 0.31
9 3,251,797 24 1.6 0.74
10 3,259,859 21 1.4 0.64
11 3,259,890 24 1.6 0.74
12 3,359,300 21 1.4 0.63
13 3,377,805 13 0.9 0.38
14 3,353,562 26 1.8 0.78
15 3,346,596 21 1.4 0.63
16 3,357,944 19 1.3 0.57
17 3,336,411 14 0.9 0.42
Unborn, Unknown, N/A 6 0.4 N/A
and 18–21
National 58,223,734 1,480 100.0 N/A
Table 4–4 Child Fatalities by Relationship to Their Perpetrators, 2020

Perpetrator Child Fatalities Relationships Relationships Percent
PARENT - - -
Father Only - 209 14.3

Father and Nonparent - 31 2.1
Mother Only - 426 29.1
Mother and Nonparent - 141 9.6
Two Parents of Known Sex - 337 23.1
Three Parents of Known Sex - - -
Two Parents of Known Sex and - 29 2.0
Nonparent
One or More Parents of Unknown Sex - 5 0.3
Total Parents - 1,178 80.6
NONPARENT - - -
Child Daycare Provider(s) - 23 1.6

Foster Parent(s) - 10 0.7
Friend(s) or Neighbor(s) - 8 0.5
Group Home and Residential Facility Staff - 2 0.1
Legal Guardian(s) - 4 0.3
Other Professional(s) - 1 0.1
Relative(s) - 77 5.3
Unmarried Partner(s) of Parent - 36 2.5
Other(s) - 52 3.6
More Than One Nonparental Perpetrator - 10 0.7
Total Nonparents - 223 15.3
UNKNOWN - 61 4.2
National 1,462 1,462 100.0

Table 4–5 Child Fatalities Who Received Family Preservation Services Within
Child File Fatalities Whose Families Agency File Fatalities Whose
Received Preservation Services in Families Received Preservation
State Child File Fatalities the Previous 5 Years Agency File Fatalities Services in the Previous 5 Years
Alabama 47 3 - -
Alaska - - - -
Arizona - - - -
Arkansas 30 3 - -
California - - - -
Colorado - - - -
Connecticut 8 0 - -
Delaware - - - -
District of Columbia 4 0 0 0
Florida 101 6 - -
Georgia 83 12 2 0
Hawaii - - - -
Idaho 5 0 - -
Illinois 100 8 2 0
Indiana - - - -
Iowa - - - -
Kansas 10 4 0 0
Kentucky 6 4 3 1
Louisiana 18 0 - -
Maine 1 0 0 0
Maryland - - - -
Massachusetts - - - -
Michigan - - - -
Minnesota 21 2 0 0
Mississippi 38 2 - -
Missouri 41 1 3 0
Montana - - - -
Nebraska 2 0 0 0
Nevada 10 0 4 1
New Hampshire 1 0 1 0
New Jersey 16 1 1 0
New Mexico 10 0 3 0
New York - - - -
North Carolina - - 1 0
North Dakota 5 0 0 0
Ohio - - - -
Oklahoma 42 2 0 0
Oregon - - 17 5
Pennsylvania - - - -
Puerto Rico 5 0 - -
Rhode Island 2 1 - -
South Carolina - - - -
South Dakota - - - -
Tennessee 34 5 - -
Texas 255 26 0 0
Utah 6 0 - -
Vermont 0 0 - -
Virginia - - - -
Washington - - 14 1
West Virginia - - - -
Wisconsin - - - -
Wyoming 3 0 0 0
National 904 80 51 8
National Percent - 8.8 - 15.7
Reporting States 29 29 20 20

Table 4–6 Child Fatalities Who Were Reunited With Their Families Within
Child File Fatalities Who Were Agency File Fatalities Who Were
Reunited With Their Families in the Reunited With Their Families in the
State Child File Fatalities Previous 5 Years Agency File Fatalities Previous 5 Years
Alabama 47 2 - -
Alaska - - 2 0
Arizona - - - -
Arkansas 30 1 - -
California - - 143 7
Colorado 24 0 - -
Connecticut 8 0 - -
Delaware 5 0 - -
District of Columbia 4 0 - -
Florida 101 2 - -
Georgia 83 1 2 0
Hawaii - - - -
Idaho 5 0 - -
Illinois 100 5 2 0
Indiana 56 4 - -
Iowa - - - -
Kansas 10 1 0 0
Kentucky 6 0 3 0
Louisiana 18 0 - -
Maine 1 0 0 0
Maryland 32 1 - -
Michigan - - - -
Minnesota 21 0 0 0
Mississippi 38 1 - -
Missouri 41 0 3 0
Montana - - - -
Nebraska 2 0 0 0
Nevada 10 1 4 1
New Hampshire 1 0 1 0
New Jersey 16 1 1 0
New Mexico 10 0 3 0
New York - - - -
North Carolina - - 1 0
North Dakota 5 0 0 0
Ohio 94 2 - -
Oklahoma 42 1 0 0
Oregon - - 17 0
Pennsylvania - - - -
Puerto Rico 5 0 - -
Rhode Island 2 0 - -
South Carolina 24 4 12 1
Tennessee 34 0 - -
Texas 255 4 0 0
Utah 6 0 - -
Vermont 0 0 - -
Virginia - - - -
Washington - - 14 3
West Virginia - - - -
Wisconsin 32 1 - -
Wyoming 3 0 0 0
National 1,171 32 208 12
National Percent - 2.7 - 5.8

Perpetrators
CHAPTER 5
NCANDS defines 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
definitions). The majority of perpetrators are caregivers of their victims.
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 2020, 52 states reported a unique count of 483,285 perpetrators. This is
a decrease from FFY 2016 when 50 states reported 517,685 unique perpetrators. Using the
count of perpetrators from the same 50 states that reported for both 2016 and 2020 shows
a decrease of 8.5 percent. One state had a significant increase in the number of reported
perpetrators due to a policy and procedure change.24 (See table 5–1 and related notes.)
Perpetrator Demographics Exhibit 5–A Perpetrators by Age, 2020

(unique count of perpetrators) More than 80.0 percent of perpetrators are in the
age range of 18–44 years
More than four-fifths (83.2%) of
perpetrators are in the age range of
18–44 years old. Perpetrators in the
age group 25–34 are 41.3 percent of all
perpetrators. Perpetrators younger than
18 years old accounted for 0.2 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 4.4 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 3.2, while
young adults in the age group of 18–24 have a rate of 2.4 per 1,000 adults in the population of
the same age. (See table 5–2, exhibit 5–A, and related notes.)
24 North Carolina recoded child dispositions of alternative response victim to indicated, meaning the children are consid-
ered victims by NCANDS and they have perpetrators. The state was not able to include all perpetrators in its 2020 data
submission, but expects to be able to collect and submit perpetrator data for its FFY 2021 submission. North Carolina is
excluded from the remaining analyses in this chapter due to the missing perpetrator data.
Child Maltreatment 2020 chAPter 5: Perpetrators 66

More than one-half (52.0%)
Exhibit 5–B Perpetrators by Race and Ethnicity, 2020
of perpetrators are female The largest percentages of perpetrators are White,
and 47.1 percent of perpetra- African-American, and Hispanic
tors are male; fewer than 1.0
percent of perpetrators (0.9
%) are of unknown sex. (See
table 5–3 and related notes.)
The three largest percentages
of perpetrators are White
(48.4%), African-American
(20.8%), and Hispanic
(20.1%). Race or ethnicity is
unknown or not reported for
5.6 percent of perpetrators.
(See table 5-4, exhibit 5–B, Based on data from 48 states. See table 5–4.
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 relationships 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 (77.2%) of perpetrators are a parent of their victim, 6.6 percent of perpetrators
are a relative other than a parent, and 4.2 percent had multiple relationships to their victims.
Approximately 4.0 percent (3.8%) 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.

General
quality issues. Exclusion rules are listed in the table notes below.
■ The data for all tables are from the Child File.
■ Rates are per 1,000 adults or children in the population.

■ Rates are calculated by dividing the perpetrator count by the adult or child 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.
analysis.
■ All tables use a unique count of perpetrators.
Table 5–1 Perpetrators, 2016–2020

■ One state did not report an NCANDS submission for FFY 2016.
■ One state did not report perpetrators for FFY 2016.
Table 5–2 Perpetrators by Age, 2020

■ 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.
■ If a perpetrator appears in two 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 duplicate victims are
associated with a perpetrator(s).
Table 5–3 Perpetrators by Sex, 2020

■ The category of unknown sex includes not reported.
Table 5–4 Perpetrators by Race and Ethnicity, 2020

■ The NCANDS category of multiple race is defined as any combination of two or more race
categories.
■ 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.

■ Only those states that reported both race and ethnicity separately are included in this analysis.
Table 5–5 Perpetrators by Relationship to Their Victims, 2020

■ 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 20.0 percent of perpetrators are reported
with an unknown or missing relationship.


Table 5–1 Perpetrators, 2016–2020
State 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Alabama 7,280 7,817 8,791 8,376 8,432
Alaska 2,424 2,177 2,032 2,294 2,425
Arizona 11,107 10,180 15,395 12,909 9,684
Arkansas 8,221 8,049 7,424 7,118 7,809
California 55,304 52,707 58,362 55,845 53,124
Colorado 9,818 10,078 10,253 10,478 9,820
Connecticut 6,470 6,938 6,292 6,497 5,171
Delaware 1,281 1,236 976 977 919
District of Columbia 961 1,112 1,136 1,257 1,054
Florida 31,333 30,364 27,844 24,927 21,599
Georgia - 7,647 8,612 8,107 6,730
Hawaii 1,195 1,086 1,098 1,158 1,150
Idaho 1,650 1,697 1,774 1,774 1,764
Illinois 20,668 20,652 22,275 23,858 25,303
Indiana 22,090 22,534 20,159 18,477 18,036
Iowa 6,437 7,867 8,529 8,327 7,625
Kansas 2,017 3,525 2,594 2,473 1,998
Kentucky 12,975 16,614 17,400 14,731 12,443
Louisiana 9,682 9,172 7,983 7,574 6,091
Maine 3,158 3,042 3,021 3,874 4,030
Maryland 5,869 6,296 6,507 6,559 6,424
Massachusetts 25,452 20,385 20,750 20,075 17,947
Michigan 30,902 31,306 30,705 26,210 21,484
Minnesota 5,792 6,469 5,617 4,951 4,709
Mississippi 8,368 8,688 8,252 7,793 6,812
Missouri 4,765 4,013 5,108 4,252 4,015
Montana 2,332 2,615 2,704 2,686 2,630
Nebraska 1,976 2,240 1,859 2,022 1,648
Nevada 3,989 3,936 4,120 4,000 4,094
New Hampshire 816 1,074 1,154 1,112 1,008
New Jersey 6,447 5,097 4,589 4,026 2,826
New Mexico 6,504 7,260 6,832 6,702 5,852
New York 51,199 56,260 54,550 52,669 45,922
North Carolina 3,710 3,832 3,409 2,770 5,414
North Dakota 1,344 1,450 1,558 1,344 1,200
Ohio 19,294 20,290 20,567 21,190 19,599
Oklahoma 12,323 12,548 12,929 12,901 12,487
Oregon 8,999 8,458 9,486 10,056 8,541
Pennsylvania 4,653 5,062 4,865 4,941 4,615
Puerto Rico - 4,415 3,347 3,666 2,734
Rhode Island 2,309 2,467 2,846 2,508 2,141
South Carolina 13,210 12,599 14,350 13,630 10,727
South Dakota 881 941 933 1,099 1,097
Tennessee 9,611 9,231 9,116 9,428 8,493
Texas 45,926 48,380 49,563 49,969 50,567
Utah 7,284 7,543 7,784 7,851 7,197
Vermont 695 724 782 709 419
Virginia 4,901 5,092 5,074 5,005 4,728
Washington 4,207 3,805 3,881 3,693 3,315
West Virginia 5,242 5,692 6,252 5,959 5,359
Wisconsin 3,886 3,933 4,031 3,668 3,345
Wyoming 728 721 780 849 729
National 517,685 537,316 546,250 525,324 483,285

Table 5–2 Perpetrators by Age, 2020 (continues next page)
Total Unique
State 6–11 12–17 18–24 25–34 35–44 45–54 55–64 65–74 75 and Older Unknown Perpetrators
Alabama - 279 1,557 3,355 1,889 569 222 78 21 462 8,432
Alaska - 8 280 1,053 699 207 104 24 2 48 2,425
Arizona 2 71 1,623 4,450 2,536 710 204 37 50 1 9,684
Arkansas 108 336 1,499 3,093 1,556 525 247 90 19 336 7,809
California 56 466 6,728 21,909 15,879 5,089 1,694 484 130 689 53,124
Colorado 35 228 1,408 4,112 2,719 787 262 74 92 103 9,820
Connecticut 5 26 615 2,111 1,603 512 156 37 9 97 5,171
Delaware 2 35 114 374 254 84 45 11 - - 919
District of Columbia - 5 116 522 268 73 21 7 - 42 1,054
Florida 4 52 2,572 9,137 6,413 1,898 758 233 84 448 21,599
Georgia - 77 1,004 2,980 1,825 524 235 68 14 3 6,730
Hawaii - 5 113 426 384 133 49 7 1 32 1,150
Idaho 1 7 307 733 483 168 53 11 1 - 1,764
Illinois 24 517 4,042 10,755 6,554 2,081 731 227 49 323 25,303
Indiana 14 469 3,623 7,820 4,170 1,164 470 143 26 137 18,036
Iowa 1 113 1,190 3,281 2,174 584 203 52 16 11 7,625
Kansas 5 124 265 721 535 187 89 31 3 38 1,998
Kentucky 1 50 1,768 5,343 3,503 1,173 427 133 41 4 12,443
Louisiana 2 35 1,087 2,894 1,477 364 158 61 11 2 6,091
Maine - 11 437 1,818 1,215 392 119 31 1 6 4,030
Maryland 44 273 682 2,141 1,660 642 290 105 570 17 6,424
Massachusetts 2 84 1,939 7,029 5,600 2,088 637 143 34 391 17,947
Michigan - 73 2,972 9,511 6,219 1,908 597 151 26 27 21,484
Minnesota 18 166 565 1,953 1,413 395 158 34 7 - 4,709
Mississippi 56 248 1,017 2,633 1,780 641 305 87 21 24 6,812
Missouri - 30 589 1,464 1,090 408 177 54 12 191 4,015
Montana 1 6 339 1,118 799 233 64 14 2 54 2,630
Nebraska - 38 255 713 477 115 37 12 1 - 1,648
Nevada - 14 534 1,865 1,131 359 148 35 8 - 4,094
New Hampshire 1 22 96 433 322 96 23 5 1 9 1,008
New Jersey - 17 229 1,159 899 290 135 30 11 56 2,826
New Mexico 1 34 664 2,412 1,598 407 136 36 6 558 5,852
New York 6 150 5,327 17,619 14,463 5,653 2,013 544 143 4 45,922
North Carolina - - - - - - - - - - -
North Dakota - 3 146 548 366 77 23 5 - 32 1,200
Ohio 89 894 3,162 7,630 4,426 1,343 597 199 44 1,215 19,599
Oklahoma - 80 2,039 5,211 3,496 959 364 112 29 197 12,487
Oregon 2 140 1,005 3,375 2,668 840 294 75 22 120 8,541
Pennsylvania - 209 644 1,601 1,224 485 220 84 24 124 4,615
Puerto Rico 1 16 439 1,104 735 246 126 51 13 3 2,734
Rhode Island 4 40 328 926 574 183 50 12 1 23 2,141
South Carolina 29 33 1,308 4,640 3,204 948 383 126 28 28 10,727
South Dakota - 4 159 504 304 82 24 2 - 18 1,097
Tennessee 11 390 1,362 3,088 1,626 570 264 111 25 1,046 8,493
Texas 198 1,723 10,942 22,079 10,657 3,038 1,323 459 113 35 50,567
Utah 21 516 1,069 2,532 2,116 635 217 67 21 3 7,197
Vermont - 20 45 180 99 45 14 6 1 9 419
Virginia 2 41 590 1,852 1,229 473 195 59 20 267 4,728
Washington - 8 341 1,324 1,127 346 106 32 7 24 3,315
West Virginia 3 12 619 2,237 1,403 428 186 56 9 406 5,359
Wisconsin 2 39 422 1,314 755 211 79 16 5 502 3,345
Wyoming - 5 107 325 220 48 14 2 2 6 729
National 751 8,242 70,283 197,407 129,816 41,416 15,446 4,563 1,776 8,171 477,871
Reporting States 33 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 47 46 51

Table 5–2 Perpetrators by Age, 2020
75 and Older
6–11 Rate 12–17 Rate 18–24 Rate 25–34 Rate 35–44 Rate 45–54 Rate 55–64 Rate 65–74 Rate Rate per
State per 1,000 per 1,000 per 1,000 per 1,000 per 1,000 per 1,000 per 1,000 per 1,000 1,000
Alabama - 0.7 3.5 5.2 3.2 0.9 0.3 0.2 0.1
Alaska - 0.1 4.2 9.1 7.1 2.5 1.1 0.4 0.1
Arizona 0.0 0.1 2.3 4.3 2.8 0.8 0.2 0.0 0.1
Arkansas 0.5 1.4 5.4 7.8 4.2 1.5 0.6 0.3 0.1
California 0.0 0.2 1.9 3.6 3.0 1.0 0.4 0.1 0.1
Colorado 0.1 0.5 2.7 4.5 3.3 1.1 0.4 0.1 0.3
Connecticut 0.0 0.1 1.8 4.7 3.7 1.1 0.3 0.1 0.0
Delaware 0.0 0.5 1.4 2.9 2.2 0.7 0.3 0.1 -
District of Columbia - 0.2 1.6 3.2 2.4 1.0 0.3 0.1 -
Florida 0.0 0.0 1.5 3.2 2.4 0.7 0.3 0.1 0.0
Georgia - 0.1 1.0 2.0 1.3 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.0
Hawaii - 0.1 1.0 2.2 2.1 0.8 0.3 0.0 0.0
Idaho 0.0 0.0 1.8 3.0 2.1 0.8 0.2 0.1 0.0
Illinois 0.0 0.5 3.6 6.2 4.0 1.3 0.4 0.2 0.1
Indiana 0.0 0.9 5.5 8.7 5.0 1.4 0.5 0.2 0.1
Iowa 0.0 0.5 3.8 8.2 5.6 1.6 0.5 0.2 0.1
Kansas 0.0 0.5 0.9 1.9 1.5 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.0
Kentucky 0.0 0.1 4.3 9.0 6.4 2.1 0.7 0.3 0.1
Louisiana 0.0 0.1 2.6 4.5 2.5 0.7 0.3 0.1 0.0
Maine - 0.1 4.1 11.1 7.7 2.3 0.6 0.2 0.0
Maryland 0.1 0.6 1.3 2.6 2.1 0.8 0.4 0.2 1.4
Massachusetts 0.0 0.2 2.8 7.1 6.5 2.4 0.7 0.2 0.1
Michigan - 0.1 3.2 7.2 5.3 1.6 0.4 0.1 0.0
Minnesota 0.0 0.4 1.1 2.6 1.9 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.0
Mississippi 0.2 1.0 3.6 6.8 4.9 1.8 0.8 0.3 0.1
Missouri - 0.1 1.1 1.8 1.4 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.0
Montana 0.0 0.1 3.5 8.0 6.0 2.0 0.4 0.1 0.0
Nebraska - 0.2 1.4 2.8 1.9 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.0
Nevada - 0.1 2.1 4.0 2.7 0.9 0.4 0.1 0.0
New Hampshire 0.0 0.2 0.8 2.5 2.0 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0
New Jersey - 0.0 0.3 1.0 0.8 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0
New Mexico 0.0 0.2 3.4 8.5 6.1 1.7 0.5 0.2 0.0
New York 0.0 0.1 3.1 6.2 5.9 2.4 0.8 0.3 0.1
North Carolina - - - - - - - - -
North Dakota - 0.1 1.8 4.8 3.9 1.0 0.2 0.1 -
Ohio 0.1 1.0 3.0 4.9 3.1 0.9 0.4 0.2 0.1
Oklahoma - 0.2 5.3 9.6 6.9 2.1 0.7 0.3 0.1
Oregon 0.0 0.5 2.8 5.5 4.6 1.6 0.6 0.2 0.1
Pennsylvania - 0.2 0.6 0.9 0.8 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0
Puerto Rico 0.0 0.1 1.5 2.7 1.9 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.0
Rhode Island 0.1 0.6 3.1 6.2 4.5 1.4 0.3 0.1 0.0
South Carolina 0.1 0.1 2.8 6.7 5.1 1.5 0.5 0.2 0.1
South Dakota - 0.1 1.9 4.4 2.8 0.9 0.2 0.0 -
Tennessee 0.0 0.7 2.2 3.2 1.9 0.7 0.3 0.2 0.1
Texas 0.1 0.7 3.9 5.1 2.7 0.8 0.4 0.2 0.1
Utah 0.1 1.6 2.9 5.3 4.7 1.9 0.7 0.3 0.1
Vermont - 0.5 0.7 2.4 1.4 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.0
Virginia 0.0 0.1 0.7 1.5 1.1 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.0
Washington - 0.0 0.5 1.1 1.1 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0
West Virginia 0.0 0.1 4.0 10.4 6.6 1.9 0.7 0.3 0.1
Wisconsin 0.0 0.1 0.8 1.8 1.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0
Wyoming - 0.1 2.0 4.3 2.9 0.8 0.2 0.0 0.1
National 0.0 0.3 2.4 4.4 3.2 1.1 0.4 0.1 0.1

Table 5–3 Perpetrators by Sex, 2020
State Men Women Unknown Total Perpetrators Men Percent Women Percent Unknown Percent
Alabama 3,773 4,633 26 8,432 44.7 54.9 0.3
Alaska 1,083 1,311 31 2,425 44.7 54.1 1.3
Arizona 4,726 4,950 8 9,684 48.8 51.1 0.1
Arkansas 3,430 4,237 142 7,809 43.9 54.3 1.8
California 24,189 28,639 296 53,124 45.5 53.9 0.6
Colorado 4,934 4,825 61 9,820 50.2 49.1 0.6
Connecticut 2,531 2,597 43 5,171 48.9 50.2 0.8
Delaware 532 387 - 919 57.9 42.1 -
District of Columbia 338 690 26 1,054 32.1 65.5 2.5
Florida 10,316 10,924 359 21,599 47.8 50.6 1.7
Georgia 2,703 4,019 8 6,730 40.2 59.7 0.1
Hawaii 520 607 23 1,150 45.2 52.8 2.0
Idaho 711 1,053 - 1,764 40.3 59.7 -
Illinois 11,682 13,435 186 25,303 46.2 53.1 0.7
Indiana 7,881 10,115 40 18,036 43.7 56.1 0.2
Iowa 3,607 4,006 12 7,625 47.3 52.5 0.2
Kansas 1,128 850 20 1,998 56.5 42.5 1.0
Kentucky 5,851 6,554 38 12,443 47.0 52.7 0.3
Louisiana 1,907 4,164 20 6,091 31.3 68.4 0.3
Maine 2,090 1,937 3 4,030 51.9 48.1 0.1
Maryland 3,357 2,783 284 6,424 52.3 43.3 4.4
Massachusetts 8,021 9,367 559 17,947 44.7 52.2 3.1
Michigan 10,434 11,023 27 21,484 48.6 51.3 0.1
Minnesota 2,512 2,197 - 4,709 53.3 46.7 -
Mississippi 2,897 3,848 67 6,812 42.5 56.5 1.0
Missouri 2,487 1,386 142 4,015 61.9 34.5 3.5
Montana 1,157 1,405 68 2,630 44.0 53.4 2.6
Nebraska 875 773 - 1,648 53.1 46.9 -
Nevada 1,836 2,258 - 4,094 44.8 55.2 -
New Hampshire 493 508 7 1,008 48.9 50.4 0.7
New Jersey 1,359 1,458 9 2,826 48.1 51.6 0.3
New Mexico 2,511 3,219 122 5,852 42.9 55.0 2.1
New York 21,955 23,962 5 45,922 47.8 52.2 0.0
North Carolina - - - - - - -
North Dakota 471 717 12 1,200 39.3 59.8 1.0
Ohio 9,386 9,821 392 19,599 47.9 50.1 2.0
Oklahoma 6,199 6,230 58 12,487 49.6 49.9 0.5
Oregon 4,849 3,635 57 8,541 56.8 42.6 0.7
Pennsylvania 3,018 1,522 75 4,615 65.4 33.0 1.6
Puerto Rico 1,052 1,682 - 2,734 38.5 61.5 -
Rhode Island 1,069 1,058 14 2,141 49.9 49.4 0.7
South Carolina 4,148 6,573 6 10,727 38.7 61.3 0.1
South Dakota 419 667 11 1,097 38.2 60.8 1.0
Tennessee 4,119 3,906 468 8,493 48.5 46.0 5.5
Texas 24,257 26,039 271 50,567 48.0 51.5 0.5
Utah 3,996 3,201 - 7,197 55.5 44.5 -
Vermont 275 144 - 419 65.6 34.4 -
Virginia 2,211 2,414 103 4,728 46.8 51.1 2.2
Washington 1,618 1,686 11 3,315 48.8 50.9 0.3
West Virginia 2,229 3,127 3 5,359 41.6 58.4 0.1
Wisconsin 1,581 1,361 403 3,345 47.3 40.7 12.0
Wyoming 297 432 - 729 40.7 59.3 -
National 225,020 248,335 4,516 477,871 47.1 52.0 0.9
Reporting States 51 51 42 51 - - -

Table 5–4 Perpetrators by Race and Ethnicity, 2020 (continues next page)
American
African- Indian or Pacific Total
State American Alaska Native Asian Hispanic Multiple Race Islander White Unknown Perpetrators
Alabama 2,397 10 11 254 48 9 5,479 224 8,432
Alaska 80 1,230 24 70 96 50 662 213 2,425
Arizona 1,106 435 49 3,183 185 28 3,605 1,093 9,684
Arkansas 1,507 7 17 479 391 21 5,120 267 7,809
California 7,175 486 1,613 24,355 - 222 14,285 4,988 53,124
Colorado - - - - - - - - -
Connecticut 1,247 3 30 1,505 72 10 2,063 241 5,171
Delaware 440 - 3 113 1 1 361 - 919
District of Columbia 705 - - 97 1 - 15 236 1,054
Florida 5,942 36 103 3,098 214 14 10,922 1,270 21,599
Georgia 2,594 5 28 429 59 5 3,349 261 6,730
Hawaii 36 1 153 37 280 299 221 123 1,150
Idaho 14 41 1 171 3 5 1,303 226 1,764
Illinois 7,881 15 236 3,969 229 9 12,541 423 25,303
Indiana 3,391 11 54 1,055 369 13 12,967 176 18,036
Iowa 1,058 113 50 527 69 20 5,690 98 7,625
Kansas 249 11 14 223 38 2 1,306 155 1,998
Kentucky 1,470 6 17 306 277 5 10,090 272 12,443
Louisiana 2,569 10 18 129 19 9 3,015 322 6,091
Maine 67 45 5 69 95 2 2,749 998 4,030
Maryland 2,327 9 47 541 36 3 1,582 1,879 6,424
Massachusetts 2,458 31 311 4,755 327 9 7,981 2,075 17,947
Michigan 5,800 72 71 1,350 1,048 6 13,030 107 21,484
Minnesota 843 330 103 425 464 7 2,436 101 4,709
Mississippi 2,340 7 16 126 22 3 3,514 784 6,812
Missouri 662 9 11 247 8 7 2,736 335 4,015
Montana 28 402 6 92 46 1 1,602 453 2,630
Nebraska 201 76 10 251 52 3 903 152 1,648
Nevada 975 26 53 995 108 40 1,606 291 4,094
New Hampshire 22 - 3 54 9 - 794 126 1,008
New Jersey 831 2 43 818 6 4 1,030 92 2,826
New Mexico 174 614 16 2,964 72 6 1,360 646 5,852
New York 13,148 183 1,362 11,627 798 27 18,361 416 45,922
North Carolina - - - - - - - - -
North Dakota 90 215 6 49 29 5 693 113 1,200
Ohio 4,705 10 53 790 631 11 12,105 1,294 19,599
Oklahoma 1,314 612 36 1,678 2,800 9 5,932 106 12,487
Oregon 382 214 60 863 154 56 5,516 1,296 8,541
Pennsylvania 963 6 35 591 58 1 2,637 324 4,615
Puerto Rico - - - - - - - - -
Rhode Island 324 12 19 443 42 1 1,065 235 2,141
South Carolina 3,853 16 10 396 88 5 5,853 506 10,727
South Dakota 41 436 8 60 96 1 422 33 1,097
Tennessee - - - - - - - - -
Texas 11,155 83 327 19,944 532 58 16,946 1,522 50,567
Utah 251 138 78 1,480 98 128 4,969 55 7,197
Vermont 13 - 5 3 - - 369 29 419
Virginia 1,101 2 42 505 31 6 2,691 350 4,728
Washington 291 142 85 412 167 39 1,965 214 3,315
West Virginia 193 1 5 24 110 1 4,955 70 5,359
Wisconsin 575 154 35 251 44 4 1,768 514 3,345
Wyoming 22 20 - 65 - 1 594 27 729
National 95,010 6,287 5,282 91,868 10,322 1,166 221,158 25,731 456,824

Table 5–4 Perpetrators by Race or Ethnicity, 2020
American
African- Indian or Pacific
American Alaska Native Hispanic Multiple Race Islander White Unknown
State Percent Percent Asian Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent
Alabama 28.4 0.1 0.1 3.0 0.6 0.1 65.0 2.7
Alaska 3.3 50.7 1.0 2.9 4.0 2.1 27.3 8.8
Arizona 11.4 4.5 0.5 32.9 1.9 0.3 37.2 11.3
Arkansas 19.3 0.1 0.2 6.1 5.0 0.3 65.6 3.4
California 13.5 0.9 3.0 45.8 - 0.4 26.9 9.4
Colorado - - - - - - - -
Connecticut 24.1 0.1 0.6 29.1 1.4 0.2 39.9 4.7
Delaware 47.9 - 0.3 12.3 0.1 0.1 39.3 -
District of Columbia 66.9 - - 9.2 0.1 - 1.4 22.4
Florida 27.5 0.2 0.5 14.3 1.0 0.1 50.6 5.9
Georgia 38.5 0.1 0.4 6.4 0.9 0.1 49.8 3.9
Hawaii 3.1 0.1 13.3 3.2 24.3 26.0 19.2 10.7
Idaho 0.8 2.3 0.1 9.7 0.2 0.3 73.9 12.8
Illinois 31.1 0.1 0.9 15.7 0.9 0.0 49.6 1.7
Indiana 18.8 0.1 0.3 5.8 2.0 0.1 71.9 1.0
Iowa 13.9 1.5 0.7 6.9 0.9 0.3 74.6 1.3
Kansas 12.5 0.6 0.7 11.2 1.9 0.1 65.4 7.8
Kentucky 11.8 0.0 0.1 2.5 2.2 0.0 81.1 2.2
Louisiana 42.2 0.2 0.3 2.1 0.3 0.1 49.5 5.3
Maine 1.7 1.1 0.1 1.7 2.4 0.0 68.2 24.8
Maryland 36.2 0.1 0.7 8.4 0.6 0.0 24.6 29.2
Massachusetts 13.7 0.2 1.7 26.5 1.8 0.1 44.5 11.6
Michigan 27.0 0.3 0.3 6.3 4.9 0.0 60.6 0.5
Minnesota 17.9 7.0 2.2 9.0 9.9 0.1 51.7 2.1
Mississippi 34.4 0.1 0.2 1.8 0.3 0.0 51.6 11.5
Missouri 16.5 0.2 0.3 6.2 0.2 0.2 68.1 8.3
Montana 1.1 15.3 0.2 3.5 1.7 0.0 60.9 17.2
Nebraska 12.2 4.6 0.6 15.2 3.2 0.2 54.8 9.2
Nevada 23.8 0.6 1.3 24.3 2.6 1.0 39.2 7.1
New Hampshire 2.2 - 0.3 5.4 0.9 - 78.8 12.5
New Jersey 29.4 0.1 1.5 28.9 0.2 0.1 36.4 3.3
New Mexico 3.0 10.5 0.3 50.6 1.2 0.1 23.2 11.0
New York 28.6 0.4 3.0 25.3 1.7 0.1 40.0 0.9
North Carolina - - - - - - - -
North Dakota 7.5 17.9 0.5 4.1 2.4 0.4 57.8 9.4
Ohio 24.0 0.1 0.3 4.0 3.2 0.1 61.8 6.6
Oklahoma 10.5 4.9 0.3 13.4 22.4 0.1 47.5 0.8
Oregon 4.5 2.5 0.7 10.1 1.8 0.7 64.6 15.2
Pennsylvania 20.9 0.1 0.8 12.8 1.3 0.0 57.1 7.0
Puerto Rico - - - - - - - -
Rhode Island 15.1 0.6 0.9 20.7 2.0 0.0 49.7 11.0
South Carolina 35.9 0.1 0.1 3.7 0.8 0.0 54.6 4.7
South Dakota 3.7 39.7 0.7 5.5 8.8 0.1 38.5 3.0
Tennessee - - - - - - - -
Texas 22.1 0.2 0.6 39.4 1.1 0.1 33.5 3.0
Utah 3.5 1.9 1.1 20.6 1.4 1.8 69.0 0.8
Vermont 3.1 - 1.2 0.7 - - 88.1 6.9
Virginia 23.3 0.0 0.9 10.7 0.7 0.1 56.9 7.4
Washington 8.8 4.3 2.6 12.4 5.0 1.2 59.3 6.5
West Virginia 3.6 0.0 0.1 0.4 2.1 0.0 92.5 1.3
Wisconsin 17.2 4.6 1.0 7.5 1.3 0.1 52.9 15.4
Wyoming 3.0 2.7 - 8.9 - 0.1 81.5 3.7
National 20.8 1.4 1.2 20.1 2.3 0.3 48.4 5.6
Reporting States - - - - - - - -

Table 5–5 Perpetrators by Relationship to Their Victims, 2020 (continues next page)
Group Home and
Child Daycare Residential Multiple
State Parent Provider Foster Parent Friend and Neighbor Facility Staff Legal Guardian Relationships
Alabama 5,918 19 9 171 8 30 412
Alaska 1,978 - 38 - - 17 143
Arizona 8,528 - 21 - 10 24 91
Arkansas 5,291 26 12 115 10 37 286
California 46,295 - 119 - 15 - 1,681
Colorado 7,139 17 16 3 11 7 547
Connecticut 4,037 1 4 28 - 97 315
Delaware 620 - - - - - 59
District of Columbia 976 1 2 - - 4 19
Florida 15,433 32 1 - - 28 1,526
Georgia 5,246 18 35 25 18 30 133
Hawaii 1,013 - 6 - 1 17 29
Idaho 1,600 2 1 14 - 23 9
Illinois 20,156 217 115 - 35 - 1,367
Indiana 13,856 73 43 401 9 51 989
Iowa 5,942 35 7 - 24 44 313
Kansas 1,320 - 16 12 13 - 31
Kentucky 9,504 13 16 209 - 288 845
Louisiana - - - - - - -
Maine 3,244 20 10 1 19 12 265
Maryland 3,644 2 42 - 28 15 204
Massachusetts 14,323 39 46 - 71 95 1,047
Michigan 16,509 - 34 705 33 90 1,658
Minnesota 3,426 33 57 18 9 36 297
Mississippi 4,828 7 77 115 22 13 222
Missouri 2,230 11 22 203 36 - 171
Montana 2,318 5 14 3 7 3 30
Nebraska 1,219 13 10 - 3 1 95
Nevada 3,456 - 7 92 23 5 174
New Hampshire 867 - - - - 9 30
New Jersey 2,160 31 8 42 8 - 92
New Mexico 5,030 - 4 5 - 42 191
New York 38,342 198 222 - 102 186 571
North Carolina - - - - - - -
North Dakota 976 - 1 36 - - 85
Ohio 12,367 41 52 238 41 - 1,155
Oklahoma 10,035 41 78 - 20 59 740
Oregon 6,173 26 24 54 1 26 646
Pennsylvania 2,565 18 18 58 28 9 98
Puerto Rico 2,151 4 10 - 14 2 218
Rhode Island 1,699 9 16 - 43 14 131
South Carolina 9,187 3 20 - 20 75 481
South Dakota 870 3 2 - 3 3 85
Tennessee 5,139 14 22 499 24 70 107
Texas 38,609 272 100 215 150 - 858
Utah 4,746 15 5 273 5 25 414
Vermont 265 3 3 40 1 - 14
Virginia 3,386 96 10 - 10 21 214
Washington 2,782 20 13 1 - - 118
West Virginia 4,039 1 17 - 7 45 338
Wisconsin 2,055 17 15 24 - 4 145
Wyoming 608 1 3 - 3 1 34
National Total 364,100 1,397 1,423 3,600 885 1,558 19,723
National Percent 77.2 0.3 0.3 0.8 0.2 0.3 4.2
Reporting States 50 39 48 28 38 39 50

Table 5–5 Perpetrators by Relationship to Their Victims, 2020
Unmarried Partner of
State Other Other Professional Relative Parent Unknown Total Perpetrators
Alabama 680 12 708 304 161 8,432
Alaska 55 - 95 77 22 2,425
Arizona 320 - 449 240 1 9,684
Arkansas 725 40 811 240 216 7,809
California 2 - 2,123 2,889 - 53,124
Colorado 405 3 775 3 894 9,820
Connecticut 262 2 169 256 - 5,171
Delaware 60 - 121 59 - 919
District of Columbia 28 - 24 - - 1,054
Florida 693 107 950 1,116 1,713 21,599
Georgia 523 55 442 205 - 6,730
Hawaii 50 - 27 - 7 1,150
Idaho 2 - 57 51 5 1,764
Illinois 535 92 1,513 986 287 25,303
Indiana 1,055 17 944 - 598 18,036
Iowa 333 - 364 555 8 7,625
Kansas 308 - 274 - 24 1,998
Kentucky 114 - 654 647 153 12,443
Louisiana - - - - - -
Maine 67 - 142 227 23 4,030
Maryland 627 - 706 - 1,156 6,424
Massachusetts 458 36 658 857 317 17,947
Michigan 248 3 1,037 1,150 17 21,484
Minnesota 99 2 388 330 14 4,709
Mississippi 179 10 722 322 295 6,812
Missouri 435 16 394 334 163 4,015
Montana 26 - 115 104 5 2,630
Nebraska 116 - 94 69 28 1,648
Nevada 8 - 114 204 11 4,094
New Hampshire - - 31 21 50 1,008
New Jersey 73 39 203 155 15 2,826
New Mexico 55 - 211 263 51 5,852
New York 738 1 2,938 263 2,361 45,922
North Carolina - - - - - -
North Dakota - - 38 - 64 1,200
Ohio 2,375 79 2,183 - 1,068 19,599
Oklahoma 835 4 550 46 79 12,487
Oregon 99 - 429 380 683 8,541
Pennsylvania 500 75 788 379 79 4,615
Puerto Rico 9 12 92 3 219 2,734
Rhode Island 75 - 45 107 2 2,141
South Carolina 229 - 395 316 1 10,727
South Dakota 25 - 40 53 13 1,097
Tennessee 1,593 6 945 72 2 8,493
Texas 1,257 188 5,306 3,484 128 50,567
Utah 546 12 805 294 57 7,197
Vermont 22 2 22 35 12 419
Virginia 287 65 364 137 138 4,728
Washington 47 - 115 216 3 3,315
West Virginia 359 1 318 26 208 5,359
Wisconsin 244 8 244 287 302 3,345
Wyoming 43 2 28 6 - 729
National Total 17,824 889 30,960 17,768 11,653 471,780
National Percent 3.8 0.2 6.6 3.8 2.5 100.0

Services
CHAPTER 6
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 to the
NCANDS services categories. (See chapter 1.) 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.
Child Maltreatment 2020 chAPter 6: Services 77

■ 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
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 reunification 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 XX of the Social Security Act, [P.L. 93–647], Social Services Block Grant (SSBG):
This grant is a flexible 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-sufficiency;
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 find 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.25 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 46 states, the FFY 2020 estimated total child recipients of prevention
services is 1,963,369. (See table 6–1 and related notes.) This is an increase from the FFY
2019 estimated total child recipients of 1,902,429, based on data from 47 states. The funding
source with the largest number of estimated total child recipients is Promoting Safe and
Stable Families with 37 states reporting 603,084 estimated recipients.26 The Community-
Based Child Abuse Prevention Grants has 38 states reporting an estimated total child recipi-
ents of 503,206. Twenty-six states reported recipients in the “Other” funding source. Due to
25 For 2020, the average number of own children under 18 in families is 1.93. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current
Population Survey. (2020). 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 House-
holder: 2020 [data file]. Retrieved April 2021 from https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2020/demo/families/cps-2020.html
26 P.L. 116-94 Family First Transition Act of 2020 renamed this program to Marylee Allen Promoting Safe and Stable
Families.

the nature of these funds and the ways states use them, the number of recipients fluctuates
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 difficulties with collecting
and reporting these data 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 difficulty collecting data from all funders or all funded agencies.
■ The prevention program may be on a different fiscal schedule (e.g., state fiscal year) and it
may be difficult 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. (See chapter 1.) Not every state reports data for
every service. Readers should see Appendix B, Glossary, for definitions of service categories
and Appendix D, State Commentary, for state-specific information on services reporting.27
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 reaffirmed the need and continuation of the services, and they should be reported
to NCANDS as postresponse services. Services that do not meet the definition of postresponse
services are those that (1) began prior to the report date, but did not continue past the disposi-
tion date or (2) began more than 90 days after the disposition date.
Approximately 1.1 million (1,159,294) children received postresponse services from a CPS
agency. Fifty-one states reported 59.7 percent of duplicate victims received postresponse
services and 51 states reported 27.1 percent of duplicate nonvictims received postresponse
services. (See table 6–2 and related notes.) This is a decrease from the 1,279,364 children who
received postresponse services for FFY 2019. Comments provided by states attribute changes
in FFY 2020 data when compared with 2019 are due to the decrease in referrals and children
known to the CPS agency due to the COVID–19 pandemic. Children who received postre-
sponse services are counted per response by CPS and may be counted more than once. States
provide data on the start of postresponse services.
Table 6–3 Average and Median Number of Days to Initiation of Services 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 2020 is 33 days and a
27 For a listing of all 26 services categories and definitions, 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-file-codebook

midpoint (median) of 20 days. (See table 6–3 and related notes.) This is the same as it was for
FFY 2019, when 45 states reported an average of 33 days and a median of 20 days.
Table 6–4 displays the 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 data from 49 states, 124,360 victims (21.8%) and 48,719 nonvictims (1.7%) are
removed from their homes. For FFY 2019, 49 states reported 142,056 victims (22.9%) and
57,681 nonvictims (1.8%) were removed. Some states report low percentages of victims and
nonvictims who received foster care services due to system limitations or other difficulties 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 finds
a drug lab in a house or finds 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-six states reported 57,525 victims (20.1%) have court-appointed representatives. (See
table 6–5 and related notes.) This is an increase from FFY 2019 when 25 states reported 53,253
victims (17.2%) 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.
History of Receiving Services (unique count of children)

Two data elements in the Agency File collect information on histories of victims with prior
CPS involvement. Based on data from 30 states, 46,205 victims (13.9%) received family
preservation services within the previous 5 years. This is a decrease from FFY 2019 when
30 states reported 53,297 of victims (15.8%) received family preservation services. (See
table 6–6 and related notes.) Data from 39 states show 20,654 of victims (4.9%) were reunited
with their families within the previous 5 years. This is a decrease from FFY 2019 when 40
states reported 23,195 of victims (5.3%) were reunited. The decreases from FFY 2019 are
likely due to the decrease in the number of victims for 2020. Several states subcontract fam-
ily preservation services to outside vendors and are not able to report these data to NCANDS.
(See table 6–7 and related notes.)

Part C of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
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 definitions:
■ 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-five states reported 93,009 victims who are eligible for referral to agencies providing
early intervention services and 27 states reported 28,523 victims who are referred. Of the
states that are able to report both the victims who are eligible and referred (27 states), 68.4
percent of victims who are eligible are referred to the agencies. (See table 6–8 and related
notes).

General
quality issues. Exclusion rules are listed in the table notes below.
■ 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.


Table 6–1 Children Who Received Prevention Services by

Funding Source, 2020
■ The number of total recipients is a duplicate count.
■ Children may be counted more than once, under a single funding source and across funding
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 (1.93) 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, 2020

■ 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 few 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, 2020
■ 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 state average is rounded to a whole day.
■ The national average is calculated by dividing the total number of days to 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 finding 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, 2020
■ 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 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 40.0 percent of nonvictims with foster care services did not have a
removal date.
Table 6–5 Victims with Court-Appointed Representatives, 2020

■ 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
Table 6–7 Victims Who Were Reunited with Their Families Within the
■ Data are from the Child File and the Agency File.
Table 6–8 IDEA: Victims Who Were Eligible and Victims Who Were
Referred to Part C Agencies, 2020

Table 6–1 Children Who Received Prevention Services by Funding Source, 2020
(continues next page)
Child Abuse and Community-Based

Neglect State State Grant State Grant Child Abuse CBCAP Estimated
Grant (State Grant) Calculated Child Estimated Total Prevention Grants CBCAP Calculated Total Child
State Children Count Child Recipients (CBCAP) Children Child Count Recipients
Alabama - 774 774 13,430 - 13,430
Alaska - - - 723 - 723
Arizona 368 537 905 - 16,654 16,654
Arkansas 11 129 140 - 2,154 2,154
California - 11,366 11,366 4,462 7,502 11,964
Colorado - - - - - -
Connecticut 17,600 - 17,600 - 290 290
Delaware - - - - - -
District of Columbia 113 - 113 - - -
Florida - - - - - -
Georgia - - - 1,597 9,667 11,264
Hawaii - - - 920 - 920
Idaho 4,459 - 4,459 662 3,005 3,667
Illinois 940 679 1,619 9,396 14,741 24,137
Indiana 26,295 - 26,295 2,519 - 2,519
Iowa - 19 19 - 573 573
Kansas - - - - - -
Kentucky - - - 1,266 - 1,266
Louisiana - - - 13,649 8,583 22,232
Maine - - - - - -
Maryland - - - - - -
Massachusetts - - - - - -
Michigan - - - 101,857 121,316 223,173
Minnesota 4,157 - 4,157 7,022 - 7,022
Mississippi - - - 2,581 9,926 12,507
Missouri - - - 672 - 672
Montana - - - 725 1,222 1,947
Nebraska - - - 2,332 - 2,332
Nevada - - - 405 - 405
New Hampshire - - - 5,332 - 5,332
New Jersey - 2,416 2,416 47,560 23,233 70,793
New Mexico - - - 85 - 85
New York - - - 931 2,467 3,398
North Carolina - - - 281 554 835
North Dakota - - - 194 1,683 1,877
Ohio - - - 843 199 1,042
Oklahoma - - - - 440 440
Oregon - - - - - -
Pennsylvania - - - 4,378 - 4,378
Puerto Rico 11,855 46,069 57,924 501 3,316 3,817
Rhode Island - - - - - -
South Carolina - - - - - -
South Dakota - - - 834 596 1,430
Tennessee - - - - - -
Texas - - - 838 1,687 2,525
Utah - - - 14,580 - 14,580
Vermont - - - - - -
Virginia 30,460 - 30,460 1,217 2,096 3,313
Washington 3,981 - 3,981 - 2,692 2,692
West Virginia 33,167 13,732 46,899 26,115 - 26,115
Wisconsin - - - - - -
Wyoming - - - 240 463 703
National 133,406 75,722 209,128 268,147 235,059 503,206

Table 6–1 Children Who Received Prevention Services by Funding Source, 2020
(continues next page)
Promoting Safe PSSF Estimated Social Services SSBG Estimated

and Stable Families PSSF Calculated Total Child Block Grant (SSBG) SSBG Calculated Total Child
State (PSSF) Children Child Count Recipients Children Child Count Recipients
Alabama - 58,458 58,458 14,301 - 14,301
Alaska 147 - 147 419 - 419
Arizona - 6,450 6,450 - - -
Arkansas - 483 483 116 49,983 50,099
California 5,103 73,271 78,374 - - -
Colorado - 3,449 3,449 - - -
Connecticut 19,242 73,238 92,480 - - -
Delaware 2,423 - 2,423 - 903 903
District of Columbia 179 - 179 - - -
Florida 24,360 - 24,360 - - -
Georgia 17,604 - 17,604 - - -
Hawaii - - - - - -
Idaho 744 - 744 1,745 - 1,745
Illinois - - - 3,807 7,940 11,747
Indiana 1,607 - 1,607 1,052 - 1,052
Iowa - 2,694 2,694 - - -
Kansas 2,846 - 2,846 - - -
Kentucky 1,052 - 1,052 - - -
Louisiana 2,098 2,117 4,215 6,881 - 6,881
Maine - - - - - -
Maryland - - - 12,750 - 12,750
Massachusetts - - - - - -
Michigan 14,324 9,474 23,798 - - -
Minnesota 1,438 - 1,438 11,468 - 11,468
Mississippi 448 - 448 - - -
Missouri - - - - - -
Montana 2,497 3,281 5,778 - - -
Nebraska - 11,130 11,130 - - -
Nevada 4,373 - 4,373 21,196 - 21,196
New Hampshire 584 - 584 1,752 - 1,752
New Jersey - - - - - -
New Mexico 969 - 969 - - -
New York - - - - - -
North Carolina 3,199 5,848 9,047 - - -
North Dakota - 3,713 3,713 - - -
Ohio - - - 39,883 - 39,883
Oklahoma 48 400 448 - - -
Oregon - 2,322 2,322 - 4,016 4,016
Pennsylvania 3,832 - 3,832 81,117 - 81,117
Puerto Rico 975 1,959 2,934 1,115 3,655 4,770
Rhode Island - 3,192 3,192 - - -
South Carolina - - - - - -
South Dakota - - - - - -
Tennessee - - - - - -
Texas 18,572 32,858 51,430 - - -
Utah - - - - - -
Vermont - - - - - -
Virginia 19,368 54,050 73,418 - - -
Washington 6,003 24,920 30,923 - - -
West Virginia 29,654 41,128 70,782 35,671 20,863 56,534
Wisconsin - - - - - -
Wyoming 1,965 2,995 4,960 5,103 - 5,103
National 185,654 417,430 603,084 238,376 87,361 325,737

Table 6–1 Children Who Received Prevention
Services by Funding Source, 2020
Other Estimated
Other Funding Other Calculated Total Child Estimated Total
State (Other) Children Child Count Recipients Child Recipients
Alabama - - - 86,963
Alaska 363 - 363 1,652
Arizona - 8,370 8,370 32,379
Arkansas - - - 52,876
California 3,874 6,591 10,465 112,168
Colorado - - - 3,449
Connecticut - 5,583 5,583 115,953
Delaware 1,014 2,611 3,625 6,952
District of Columbia 1,125 - 1,125 1,417
Florida - - - 24,360
Georgia 42,627 37,457 80,084 108,953
Hawaii - - - 920
Idaho 57 - 57 10,672
Illinois - - - 37,504
Indiana 10,539 - 10,539 42,012
Iowa - - - 3,287
Kansas 121 - 121 2,967
Kentucky 2,712 - 2,712 5,030
Louisiana 2,443 6,568 9,011 42,339
Maine - - - -
Maryland - - - 12,750
Michigan - - - 246,971
Minnesota - - - 24,085
Mississippi 1,114 - 1,114 14,069
Missouri 2,124 - 2,124 2,796
Montana - - - 7,725
Nebraska - - - 13,462
Nevada 16,865 - 16,865 42,839
New Hampshire - - - 7,668
New Jersey - 5,331 5,331 78,540
New Mexico - 706 706 1,760
New York 84,174 - 84,174 87,572
North Carolina 3,401 6,684 10,085 19,966
North Dakota - - - 5,590
Ohio - - - 40,925
Oklahoma 6,179 9,544 15,723 16,610
Oregon - 367 367 6,705
Pennsylvania 6,764 - 6,764 96,091
Puerto Rico 402 1,621 2,023 71,468
Rhode Island - - - 3,192
South Carolina - - - -
South Dakota - - - 1,430
Tennessee - - - -
Texas - - - 53,955
Utah 18,860 - 18,860 33,440
Vermont - - - -
Virginia 5,143 9,575 14,718 121,908
Washington - - - 37,597
West Virginia 11,305 - 11,305 211,636
Wisconsin - - - -
Wyoming - - - 10,767
National 221,206 101,008 322,214 1,963,369

Table 6–2 Children Who Received Postresponse Services, 2020
Nonvictims
Victims Who Victims Who Nonvictims Who Received
Received Received Who Received Postresponse
Postresponse Postresponse Postresponse Services
State Victims Services Services Percentage Nonvictims Services Percentage
Alabama 12,029 6,761 56.2 28,499 4,697 16.5
Alaska 3,684 1,940 52.7 17,717 914 5.2
Arizona 10,510 10,219 97.2 83,205 46,141 55.5
Arkansas 9,734 8,303 85.3 55,221 8,879 16.1
California 64,001 54,055 84.5 304,119 202,104 66.5
Colorado 12,513 2,240 17.9 40,020 876 2.2
Connecticut 6,759 6,506 96.3 9,342 8,459 90.5
Delaware 1,227 258 21.0 10,577 919 8.7
District of Columbia 1,699 247 14.5 8,564 269 3.1
Florida 29,599 10,962 37.0 274,688 8,979 3.3
Georgia 8,884 6,431 72.4 137,743 78,734 57.2
Hawaii 1,371 898 65.5 4,036 647 16.0
Idaho 2,000 1,187 59.4 13,980 843 6.0
Illinois 40,282 19,634 48.7 140,668 24,161 17.2
Indiana 24,219 13,695 56.5 166,585 13,043 7.8
Iowa 12,705 12,705 100.0 37,476 37,476 100.0
Kansas 2,519 1,240 49.2 36,742 8,302 22.6
Kentucky 18,260 12,694 69.5 62,750 4,320 6.9
Louisiana 7,100 3,835 54.0 18,639 1,179 6.3
Maine 5,220 1,568 30.0 20,089 375 1.9
Maryland 7,779 1,306 16.8 25,052 1,320 5.3
Massachusetts 24,958 22,853 91.6 49,922 31,077 62.3
Michigan 28,654 7,169 25.0 132,546 10,689 8.1
Minnesota 6,934 4,366 63.0 35,489 9,473 26.7
Mississippi 8,784 4,239 48.3 32,134 2,597 8.1
Missouri 4,558 2,703 59.3 71,777 20,283 28.3
Montana 4,122 2,019 49.0 15,764 1,276 8.1
Nebraska 2,472 1,889 76.4 29,729 13,227 44.5
Nevada 5,231 3,148 60.2 27,634 5,206 18.8
New Hampshire 1,214 632 52.1 14,952 1,005 6.7
New Jersey 3,821 2,208 57.8 79,988 15,776 19.7
New Mexico 8,242 2,476 30.0 26,249 2,196 8.4
New York - - - - - -
North Carolina 24,121 13,264 55.0 100,689 18,628 18.5
North Dakota 1,657 1,168 70.5 4,484 311 6.9
Ohio 26,126 16,575 63.4 100,122 29,492 29.5
Oklahoma 15,439 13,475 87.3 51,741 36,175 69.9
Oregon 12,384 3,851 31.1 45,876 2,574 5.6
Pennsylvania 4,770 1,234 25.9 31,095 2,230 7.2
Puerto Rico 3,828 3,343 87.3 9,344 3,260 34.9
Rhode Island 2,905 1,338 46.1 6,405 870 13.6
South Carolina 15,109 5,008 33.1 62,785 7,490 11.9
South Dakota 1,656 851 51.4 2,914 286 9.8
Tennessee 8,911 8,911 100.0 92,737 86,960 93.8
Texas 67,462 35,403 52.5 226,992 16,082 7.1
Utah 10,234 9,190 89.8 19,861 14,698 74.0
Vermont 562 166 29.5 3,060 416 13.6
Virginia 5,836 1,647 28.2 44,759 2,025 4.5
Washington 4,583 2,382 52.0 56,316 3,725 6.6
West Virginia 6,411 6,170 96.2 47,387 6,104 12.9
Wisconsin 4,372 1,858 42.5 34,040 2,561 7.5
Wyoming 1,050 837 79.7 3,631 2,908 80.1
National 598,500 357,057 59.7 2,956,134 802,237 27.1
Reporting States 51 51 - 51 51 -

Table 6–3 Average and Median Number of Days to Initiation of Services, 2020
Children Who Received Services on Average Number of Days to Median Number of Days to
State Children Who Received Services or After the Report Date Initiation of Services Initiation of Services
Alabama 11,458 11,412 32 24
Alaska 2,854 2,854 78 40
Arizona 56,360 55,456 48 43
Arkansas 17,182 16,338 35 37
California 256,159 243,294 16 7
Colorado 3,116 3,007 23 15
Connecticut - - - -
Delaware 1,177 1,177 87 60
District of Columbia 516 504 40 30
Florida 19,941 14,257 28 10
Georgia 85,165 83,357 15 6
Hawaii 1,545 1,279 22 2
Idaho 2,030 1,992 31 22
Illinois 43,795 23,375 39 30
Indiana 26,738 26,662 36 22
Iowa 50,181 50,181 24 27
Kansas 9,542 4,955 60 35
Kentucky 17,014 14,746 80 67
Louisiana 5,014 4,613 40 24
Maine 1,943 1,943 41 30
Maryland - - - -
Massachusetts 53,930 36,405 14 18
Michigan 17,858 9,065 41 33
Minnesota 13,839 13,839 61 44
Mississippi 6,836 6,790 27 27
Missouri 22,986 20,577 57 42
Montana 3,295 2,636 46 25
Nebraska 15,116 6,728 56 31
Nevada 8,354 8,207 65 56
New Hampshire 1,637 1,326 68 43
New Jersey 17,984 11,404 49 40
New Mexico 4,672 3,836 36 11
New York - - - -
North Carolina - - - -
North Dakota 1,479 1,454 49 41
Ohio 46,067 38,079 39 30
Oklahoma 49,650 49,544 51 50
Oregon 6,425 5,897 50 21
Pennsylvania 3,464 2,591 29 28
Puerto Rico 6,603 5,389 88 29
Rhode Island 2,208 1,361 31 15
South Carolina 12,498 7,067 36 40
Tennessee - - - -
Texas 51,485 50,645 59 50
Utah - - - -
Vermont 582 340 38 20
Virginia 3,672 2,254 41 21
Washington 6,107 4,715 33 16
West Virginia 12,274 7,292 41 21
Wisconsin 4,419 4,419 57 56
Wyoming 3,745 3,710 12 6
National 988,915 866,972 33 20
Reporting States 45 45 - -

Table 6–4 Children Who Received Foster Care Postresponse Services and
Who had a Removal Date On or After the Report Date, 2020
Victims Who Nonvictims Who
Victims Who Received Foster Care Nonvictims Who Received Foster Care
Received Foster Care Postresponse Services Received Foster Care Postresponse Services
State Victims Postresponse Services Percent Nonvictims Postresponse Services Percent
Alabama 12,029 2,066 17.2 28,499 877 3.1
Alaska 3,684 737 20.0 17,717 504 2.8
Arizona 10,510 4,549 43.3 83,205 1,593 1.9
Arkansas 9,734 1,998 20.5 55,221 1,081 2.0
California 64,001 21,498 33.6 304,119 6,009 2.0
Colorado 12,513 1,391 11.1 40,020 295 0.7
Connecticut 6,759 1,044 15.4 9,342 253 2.7
Delaware 1,227 125 10.2 10,577 44 0.4
District of Columbia 1,699 192 11.3 8,564 31 0.4
Florida 29,599 10,318 34.9 274,688 3,085 1.1
Georgia 8,884 1,892 21.3 137,743 1,836 1.3
Hawaii 1,371 651 47.5 4,036 66 1.6
Idaho 2,000 468 23.4 13,980 103 0.7
Illinois 40,282 7,395 18.4 140,668 2,447 1.7
Indiana 24,219 7,721 31.9 166,585 2,913 1.7
Iowa 12,705 1,688 13.3 37,476 86 0.2
Kansas 2,519 203 8.1 36,742 831 2.3
Kentucky 18,260 806 4.4 62,750 72 0.1
Louisiana 7,100 1,903 26.8 18,639 261 1.4
Maine 5,220 1,159 22.2 20,089 336 1.7
Maryland 7,779 604 7.8 25,052 186 0.7
Massachusetts 24,958 3,805 15.2 49,922 872 1.7
Michigan 28,654 3,565 12.4 132,546 991 0.7
Minnesota 6,934 1,953 28.2 35,489 1,943 5.5
Mississippi 8,784 1,038 11.8 32,134 292 0.9
Missouri 4,558 1,476 32.4 71,777 3,664 5.1
Montana 4,122 1,706 41.4 15,764 498 3.2
Nebraska 2,472 942 38.1 29,729 916 3.1
Nevada 5,231 2,162 41.3 27,634 617 2.2
New Hampshire 1,214 445 36.7 14,952 291 1.9
New Jersey 3,821 769 20.1 79,988 1,114 1.4
New Mexico 8,242 1,074 13.0 26,249 417 1.6
New York - - - - - -
North Carolina - - - - - -
North Dakota 1,657 391 23.6 4,484 40 0.9
Ohio 26,126 5,786 22.1 100,122 2,831 2.8
Oklahoma 15,439 3,340 21.6 51,741 65 0.1
Oregon 12,384 2,709 21.9 45,876 714 1.6
Pennsylvania - - - - - -
Puerto Rico 3,828 272 7.1 9,344 18 0.2
Rhode Island 2,905 579 19.9 6,405 108 1.7
South Carolina 15,109 2,270 15.0 62,785 556 0.9
South Dakota 1,656 797 48.1 2,914 215 7.4
Tennessee 8,911 1,820 20.4 92,737 3,196 3.4
Texas 67,462 11,085 16.4 226,992 1,276 0.6
Utah 10,234 1,023 10.0 19,861 25 0.1
Vermont 562 78 13.9 3,060 121 4.0
Virginia 5,836 1,331 22.8 44,759 830 1.9
Washington 4,583 1,588 34.6 56,316 1,418 2.5
West Virginia 6,411 1,904 29.7 47,387 644 1.4
Wisconsin 4,372 1,617 37.0 34,040 2,105 6.2
Wyoming 1,050 427 40.7 3,631 33 0.9
National 569,609 124,360 21.8 2,824,350 48,719 1.7
Reporting States 49 49 - 49 49 -

Table 6–5 Victims With Court-Appointed Representatives, 2020
Victims With Court-Appointed Victims With Court-Appointed
State Victims Representatives Representatives Percent
Alabama 12,029 927 7.7
Alaska 3,684 730 19.8
Arizona 10,510 3,903 37.1
Arkansas - - -
California 64,001 15,740 24.6
Colorado - - -
Connecticut - - -
Delaware 1,227 131 10.7
District of Columbia - - -
Florida - - -
Georgia 8,884 1,528 17.2
Hawaii 1,371 828 60.4
Idaho - - -
Illinois - - -
Indiana 24,219 5,886 24.3
Iowa 12,705 1,937 15.2
Kansas - - -
Kentucky 18,260 3,129 17.1
Louisiana - - -
Maine 5,220 850 16.3
Maryland - - -
Michigan - - -
Minnesota 6,934 1,573 22.7
Mississippi 8,784 802 9.1
Missouri - - -
Montana 4,122 746 18.1
Nebraska 2,472 1,072 43.4
Nevada 5,231 638 12.2
New Hampshire 1,214 541 44.6
New Jersey - - -
New Mexico 8,242 1,162 14.1
New York - - -
North Carolina - - -
North Dakota 1,657 107 6.5
Ohio 26,126 4,891 18.7
Oklahoma 15,439 1,484 9.6
Oregon - - -
Pennsylvania - - -
Puerto Rico - - -
Rhode Island 2,905 606 20.9
South Dakota - - -
Tennessee - - -
Texas - - -
Utah 10,234 1,589 15.5
Vermont 562 120 21.4
Virginia 5,836 1,453 24.9
Washington - - -
West Virginia - - -
Wisconsin - - -
Wyoming - - -
National 286,826 57,525 20.1

Table 6–6 Victims Who Received Family Preservation
Services Within the Previous 5 Years, 2020
Victims Who Received Family Victims Who Received Family
Preservation Services Within the Preservation Services Within the
State Victims Previous 5 Years Number Previous 5 Years Percent
Alabama 11,663 401 3.4
Alaska - - -
Arizona - - -
Arkansas 9,241 1,722 18.6
California - - -
Colorado - - -
Connecticut - - -
Delaware - - -
District of Columbia 1,568 323 20.6
Florida 28,268 4,546 16.1
Georgia 8,690 1,139 13.1
Hawaii - - -
Idaho 1,958 402 20.5
Illinois 35,437 6,645 18.8
Indiana - - -
Iowa - - -
Kansas 2,386 665 27.9
Kentucky 16,748 1,231 7.4
Louisiana 6,859 1,524 22.2
Maine 4,726 1,110 23.5
Maryland - - -
Michigan - - -
Minnesota 6,647 2,400 36.1
Missouri 4,449 491 11.0
Montana - - -
Nebraska 2,376 311 13.1
Nevada 5,016 508 10.1
New Jersey 3,655 329 9.0
New Mexico 7,050 480 6.8
New York - - -
North Carolina 22,399 7 0.0
North Dakota - - -
Ohio - - -
Oklahoma 14,685 617 4.2
Oregon 11,487 951 8.3
Pennsylvania - - -
Puerto Rico 3,572 335 9.4
South Dakota - - -
Tennessee 8,687 1,628 18.7
Texas 65,116 9,658 14.8
Utah 9,694 42 0.4
Vermont 530 103 19.4
Virginia - - -
Washington 3,967 288 7.3
West Virginia - - -
Wisconsin - - -
Wyoming - - -
National 331,473 46,205 13.9

Table 6–7 Victims Who Were Reunited With Their
Families Within the Previous 5 Years, 2020
Victims Who Were Reunited With Victims Who Were Reunited With
Their Families Within the Previous Their Families Within the Previous
State Victims 5 Years Number 5 Years Percent
Alabama 11,663 336 2.9
Alaska 3,212 249 7.8
Arizona - - -
Arkansas 9,241 207 2.2
California - - -
Colorado 11,615 489 4.2
Connecticut 6,346 180 2.8
Delaware 1,200 56 4.7
District of Columbia 1,568 21 1.3
Florida 28,268 2,265 8.0
Georgia 8,690 416 4.8
Hawaii 1,294 69 5.3
Idaho 1,958 68 3.5
Illinois 35,437 1,390 3.9
Indiana 22,648 1,747 7.7
Iowa - - -
Kansas 2,386 325 13.6
Kentucky 16,748 988 5.9
Louisiana 6,859 432 6.3
Maine 4,726 463 9.8
Maryland - - -
Michigan - - -
Minnesota 6,647 536 8.1
Missouri 4,449 175 3.9
Montana - - -
Nebraska 2,376 244 10.3
Nevada 5,016 495 9.9
New Jersey 3,655 251 6.9
New Mexico 7,050 450 6.4
New York - - -
North Carolina 22,399 371 1.7
North Dakota - - -
Ohio 23,691 1,206 5.1
Oklahoma 14,685 669 4.6
Oregon 11,487 1,149 10.0
Pennsylvania - - -
Puerto Rico 3,572 10 0.3
South Carolina 14,263 206 1.4
South Dakota - - -
Tennessee 8,687 341 3.9
Texas 65,116 1,502 2.3
Utah 9,694 247 2.5
Vermont 530 43 8.1
Virginia - - -
Washington 3,967 430 10.8
West Virginia - - -
Wisconsin 4,177 357 8.5
Wyoming - - -
National 419,919 20,654 4.9

Table 6–8 IDEA: Victims Who Were Eligible and Victims Who
Were Referred to Part C Agencies, 2020
Victims Who Were Eligible for Victims Who Were Referred to Victims Who Were Referred to
State Referral to Part C Agencies Part C Agencies Part C Agencies Percent
Alabama 3,302 745 22.6
Alaska 835 835 100.0
Arizona - - -
Arkansas 3,091 - -
California 17,457 - -
Colorado 3,106 - -
Connecticut 1,732 1,665 96.1
Delaware - - -
Florida - - -
Georgia 2,663 - -
Hawaii - - -
Idaho 690 315 45.7
Illinois - - -
Indiana - - -
Iowa 3,503 3,503 100.0
Kansas 262 225 85.9
Kentucky 4,801 - -
Louisiana 3,519 2,719 77.3
Maine 1,110 1,110 100.0
Maryland - - -
Massachusetts 5,482 - -
Michigan - - -
Minnesota 1,785 1,785 100.0
Mississippi 519 200 38.5
Missouri 570 255 44.7
Montana - - -
Nebraska 621 621 100.0
Nevada - - -
New Hampshire 296 - -
New Jersey 818 669 81.8
New Mexico 1,833 1,540 84.0
New York 13,016 - -
North Carolina - 884 -
North Dakota 396 381 96.2
Ohio 5,677 5,677 100.0
Oklahoma 4,469 823 18.4
Oregon 2,713 - -
Pennsylvania - - -
Rhode Island 770 761 98.8
Tennessee - - -
Texas - - -
Utah 1,947 1,947 100.0
Vermont - - -
Virginia - - -
West Virginia 2,315 826 35.7
Wisconsin 1,063 189 17.8
Wyoming 272 272 100.0
National 93,009 28,523 -
National for States 40,384 27,639 68.4
Reporting Both Victims
Eligible and Referred
Reporting States for 27 27 -
States Reporting Both
Victims Eligible and Referred

Special Focus
CHAPTER 7
The purpose of this chapter is to highlight analyses of specific subsets of children or data
analyses focusing on a specific topic. These analyses may otherwise have been spread
throughout the report in different chapters, which can make it more difficult for readers to
see the whole analytical picture. Some analyses are expected to change with each edition of
Child Maltreatment. In this edition, this chapter focuses on quarterly analyses of child welfare
data during the COVID-19 pandemic by comparing FFY 2020 quarterly data (October 2019
through September 2020) with the same quarters from FFY 2019 (October 2018 through
September 2019).28,29 Data are presented at the state and national level. To ensure the analyses
are comparable to others presented in this report, the data are assigned to each quarter based on
disposition date (the date a determination is made by the child protective services agency about
whether the maltreatment occurred).30
States were asked to provide comments about how their child welfare agencies continued
operations during the year, especially during the “lockdown” period from March through June
2020. All states declared a state of emergency during March and nearly all initiated some form
of stay-at-home order during late March/early April 2020.31 For many of those states, the child
welfare agencies transitioned some or all operations to virtual. Readers are encouraged to
review Appendix D, State Commentary.
Executive Summary
In the sections below, quarterly data for FFY 2020 were compared with the corresponding
quarters during FFY 2019 to see how COVID-19 pandemic affected child maltreatment data.
When the national annual data are broken down into quarterly analyses the timing of decreases
are shown to begin with the lockdown period of March through June 2020.
The quarterly analyses also show differences in established seasonal patterns, such as in the
number of reports submitted by education personnel. Annually, education personnel account
for the largest numbers of screened-in referrals during the school year (September–June).
However, when schools transitioned to virtual learning, the number of referrals by education
personnel declined sharply. Victims in the age range of 6–12 have the largest percent decrease
and are the most likely to be affected by school closures/moving to virtual learning and not be
referred to CPS by education personnel report sources. COVID-19 presented unique challenges
28 The quarters are as follows: first quarter is October through December, second quarter is January through March, third
quarter is April through June, and fourth quarter is July through September.
29 The services data are not presented by quarters because services could have begun before the report date or 90 days after
the disposition date. See Chapter 6 for more information on how services data are collected.
30 Each state’s submitted Child File only includes completed reports with a disposition (or finding) as an outcome of the CPS
response during the reporting year. (See chapter 1.)
31 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state_and_local_government_responses_to_the_COVID-19_ pandemic
Child Maltreatment 2020 chAPter 7: Special Focus 94

for service provision. Some services were provided virtually, while other services continued
in-person. While the number of children who received services decreased for the year, the
percentages of service recipients remained comparable to prior years.
Screened-in Referrals
During FFY 2020, the CPS agencies in 52 reporting states screened in 2.1 million (2,120,316)
referrals at a rate of 28.9 per 1,000 children in the population. FFY 2020 shows a total decrease
of 10.5 percent in the number of total screened-in referrals compared with FFY 2019. (See
chapter 2 for definitions and information about screening processes.)
While there is an overall decrease, analyzing the data by quarters shows both increases and
decreases, depending upon the quarter. For many states, the end of March or early April is
when the “lockdown” period began. According to state comments, during this period, calls to
the Hotline alleging maltreatment greatly reduced as schools, parks, restaurants, supermarkets,
and other public places limited the number of people allowed to enter, moved to virtual interac-
tions only, or closed completely. These restrictions limited the ability of people to witness
and call-in maltreatment allegations. Nearly all states provide comments that their Hotlines
remained open during the pandemic, with some states transitioning call center operations to
enable staff to answer calls from their homes.
For both fiscal years, the first two quarters (October through December and January through
March) result in nearly identical totals 1,188,218 for FFY 2019 and 1,189,264 for FFY 2020, a
difference of 1,046. (See table 7–1 and related notes.) For the period of April through June, the
data for FFY 2020 look very different than the data for FFY 2019. For FFY 2019, this period
is when the largest number of referrals are screened in for a CPS response, however for
FFY 2020 there is a
large decrease of 22.8 Exhibit 7–A Screened-in Referrals by Quarters, 2019–2020
The number of screened-in referrals decreased during the
percent in the number
third quarter of FFY 2020
of referrals screened in
compared with the same
period in FFY 2019.
(See exhibit 7–A and
related notes.)
Many states commented

that (appendix D) they
implemented new
screening questions
to determine whether
an in-person response
or a virtual response
was needed during
lockdown to ensure the Based on data from 52 states. See table 7–1.
safety of CPS workers

and the alleged victims and their families. Some states commented that they changed screening
policies to enable virtual responses and most states say that either screening policies did not
change or any changes were temporary. For example, as one state said in commentary (appen-
dix D), “To minimize person-to-person interaction and spread of Covid-19, staff were asked to
temporarily suspend normal face-to-face contacts and home visits, unless there was concern
regarding an immediate safety threat. However, frequent contact with families and children
via telephone, Skype, or similar platforms was required to ensure all necessary supports and
services continued to be provided.” One state, “…made changes to screen out priority 3 (lowest
priority) reports on March 23, 2020. However, priority 3 reports regarding high-risk infants,
reports of maltreatment in foster care, and reports of sex abuse or serious physical abuse cases
were screened in.” The FFY 2020 decrease in screened-in referrals continues for the last
quarter of FFY 2020. As the pandemic continued into FFY 2021, the next data submission is
needed to determine whether referrals increased as restrictions lifted.
While most states reported a decrease in the number of total referrals received, two states began
reporting screened-out referrals with their 2020 data. Additionally, a few states screened in more
referrals for 2020 than 2019. Not every state provided comments about the increase, but explana-
tions include a reduction in backlog, a new policy to screen in all referrals by medical profession-
als for children younger than six years, and a new pilot alternative response program began.
Report Sources
The report source is the role of the person who notified 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 or alternative response are submitted to NCANDS. See chapter 2 for definitions
and information about report sources.
As there are fewer reports (screened-in referrals) for FFY 2020, the number of report sources
also is lower. FFY 2020 shows an overall decrease of 11.0 percent in the number of total report
sources when compared with FFY 2019. The largest changes are in the professional report
sources, which decreased 13.2 percent from FFY 2019. As most schools experienced lockdown
and moved to virtual learning, the education personnel report source category shows the largest
decrease of 27.0 percent for all of FFY 2020 when compared with FFY 2019. (See table 7–2 and
related notes)
Analyzing the data by quarters shows, that for both fiscal years, the first two quarters
(October through March) result in nearly identical totals, with a difference of just 1,050. As
seen during FFY 2019 (and during prior years), the quarter with the months of July through
September has the lowest number of report sources.32 This seasonal pattern is mostly due to
schools being closed for the summer as education personnel historically submit the largest
number of reports each year. This is also true for FFY 2020, only significantly decreased
due to the pandemic. The largest decrease for education personnel of 73.5 percent occurred
during July through September 2020, the second largest decrease of 58.4 percent occurred for
32 Report source data tends to be very stable. See prior editions of Child Maltreatment on the Children’s Bureau website at

Exhibit 7–B Selected Report Sources by Quarters, 2019-2020
Education personnel had the largest decrease for the report sources
this report source during the lockdown period of April through June 2020. (See exhibit 7–B
and related notes)
The category of child daycare provider had the second largest overall decrease of 22.3 percent
for FFY 2020 when compared with FFY 2019. With the largest decreases for this report source
occurring during the lockdown period of April through June 2020 (45.1%) and July through
September 2020 (39.9%).
The category least affected by the pandemic is legal and law enforcement personnel, which had
an overall decrease of 2.6 percent for FFY 2020 when compared with FFY 2019. Reviewing
the prepandemic patterns of FFY 2019 shows that when schools are closed for the summer, the
number of legal and law enforcement reports increase. During April through June of FFY 2019,
legal and law enforcement personnel submitted 106,893 reports which increased to 114,132
reports during July through September. This pattern also occurred during the pandemic as dur-
ing April through June FFY 2020 legal and law enforcement submitted 102,575 reports, which
increased to 106,736 reports during July through September
Children Who Received an Investigation Response or

Alternative Response (unique count of children)
For FFY 2020, about 3,145,000 children (national rounded number) received either an investiga-
tion or alternative response at a rate of 42.9 children per 1,000 in the population. The CPS data
for FFY 2020 shows a national decrease in children who were the subjects of a CPS response
when compared with 2019. This analysis counts a child once regardless of the number of times

the child received an Exhibit 7–C Number of Children Who Received
investigation or alternative an Investigation Response or Alternative
response. See chapter 3 for Response by Quarters, 2019–2020
definitions and informa- The largest decreases of children who received a CPS
tion about investigations response occurred during April through September 2020
and alternative responses.
Overall, for FFY 2020, the

number of children who
received an investigation
or alternative response
decreased 9.5 percent
from FFY 2019. As shown
in table 7–3, the largest
decreases occurred during
April through September
2020. (See table 7–3,
exhibit 7–C, and related
notes.) Based on data from 52 states. See table 7–3.
States’ explanations for the decrease in the number of children who received a CPS response
centered on the reduction of reports (screened-in referrals) due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
According to state comments, approximately one-half of the states used a combination of
in-person and virtual methods to conduct investigations or assessments. The determination of
which method depended upon answers to screening questions about COVID-19 and the mal-
treatment risk of the alleged victims. Many states continued in-person operations and provided
workers with personal protective equipment for the safety of the workers and the families.
For example, one state said, “child welfare hotline and emergency response investigations are
essential government functions and should be prioritized to protect the safety and well-being
of children and families. County child welfare emergency response workers were established
as first responders when assessing for the safety and well-being of children reported as being
abused or neglected.”
Some of the same states with increases in reports (screened-in referrals) during FFY 2020 also
had increases in the number of children who received a CPS response. Two additional expla-
nations were provided by states: an increase in staff and dedicated case management hours
enabled a larger number of assessments to be completed; and data cleanup.
Child Victims (unique count of victims)

For FFY 2020, there are nationally 618,000 (rounded) victims of child abuse and neglect.
This equates to a national rate of 8.4 victims per 1,000 children in the population. States have
different policies about what is considered child maltreatment and different levels of evidence
required to substantiate an abuse allegation; all or some of which may account for variations in
victimization. See chapter 3 for definitions and information about victims of abuse and neglect.

For FFY 2020 there is a Exhibit 7–D, Number of Victims by Quarters, 2019–2020
5.8 percent decrease in While the victims count is stable for FFY 2019 and
the number of victims into the first two quarters of FFY 2020, there is a large
when compared with decrease during the last half of FFY 2020
FFY 2019. The decrease
occurred during the
second half of the fiscal
year.33 (See table 7–4 and
related notes.) Throughout
FFY 2019 the number of
children determined to be
victims of maltreatment
is stable for each quarter.
During FFY 2020,
the number decreases
significantly at the start
of the lockdown period
in April and continues
through September. (See
exhibit 7–D, and related
notes.)
Child Victim Demographics (unique count of victims)

As mentioned above, the numbers of victims decreased during FFY 2020 when compared with
FFY 2019. Grouping the victims by approximate education categories (preschool/kindergarten,
elementary, and high school) shows that victims in the age range of 6–12 have the largest
percent decrease at 8.2 percent. This group is the most likely to be affected by school closures
and moving to virtual learning and not be referred to CPS by education personnel report
sources. Next are the victims in the 1–5 age range with a 5.0 percent decrease. It is interesting
to note that children younger than 1 year, who are most vulnerable to and have the highest rate
of maltreatment had one of the smallest decreases at 3.9 percent. See table 7–5, exhibit 7–E, and
related notes.)
The racial distributions show that for nearly all race categories, there is a decrease during the
last 6 months of FFY 2020. However, victims of American Indian or Alaska Native descent had
an increase of 1.4 percent for the fiscal year.34 (See table 7–6 and related notes.)
33 North Carolina recoded child dispositions of alternative response victim to indicated, which greatly increased the state’s
count of unique victims. Without North Carolina included in the percent change calculation, the decrease from FFY 2019
would have been 8.4 percent.
34 This increase may be due in part to improved reporting as one state provided in commentary, “…[Alaska] has enhanced
efforts related to the identification and documentation of children with Alaska Native race, which may decrease children
with unknown race while increasing counts for identified races.” The state also took advantage of the reduced workload to
clear a backlog of cases and included a larger number of closed reports in its FFY 2020 submission.

Exhibit 7–E Age Groups of Victims by Quarters, 2019–2020
Victims in the age range of 6–12 have the largest decrease
Children Who Received Postresponse Services

(duplicate count of children)
For FFY 2020, 51 state reported 1.1 million (1,159,294) children received postresponse services
from a CPS agency. Fifty-one states reported 59.7 percent of duplicate victims received postre-
sponse services and 51 states reported 27.1 percent of duplicate nonvictims received postre-
sponse services. NCANDS and the Child Maltreatment report focus on only those postresponse
services that were initiated or continued as a result of the investigation response or alternative
response. See chapter 6 for definitions and information about services.
Services data are presented as totals for 3 years in table 7–7. The number of states reporting
services remained stable, with one state reporting services for the first time in FFY 2020. The
percentage of victims who received services remained within 1 percentage point across the
3 years, even though the number of victims decreased. The largest percentage is 60.8 during
FFY 2019 and the lowest is 59.7 during FFY 2020. The percentage of nonvictims who received
services also remained consistent with a high in FFY 2018 of 29.1 and a low of 27.1 percent in
FFY 2020. (See table 7–7 and related notes.)
States’ comments in appendix D show how states made efforts to continue services during the
COVID-19 pandemic. Some services were able to be conducted virtually, while other services
continued in-person when safe to do so. For example, one state said, “During the pandemic,
providers have independently made decisions about service provision and deliver a blend of
in-person and virtual services.” Another state explained that the decision to provide virtual or
in-person services depended upon the household’s willingness to get tested for COVID-19 and
the test results, “All contracted services shall be conducted virtually if anyone in the household
involved with the service has reported symptoms of Covid-19, tested positive for Covid-19,
or pending a test for Covid-19. If a client is reporting symptoms of Covid-19 they should be
instructed to seek a Covid-19 test. If the test results are negative, services should return to

in-person. If a client tests positive or refuses testing, services shall return to in-person after
the CDC recommended isolation period (at least 10 days have passed since symptoms first
appeared and at least 24 hours have passed without the use of fever-reducing medications and
improvement in symptoms).”
However, there were some barriers to virtual service provision, as one state noted, “Many
service providers limited or canceled in-home service provision and transitioned to telemedi-
cine. The state experienced delays in service provision by third party vendors as they adapted
to the pandemic. Child removals were not affected by the pandemic.” Another state said,
virtual service delivery increased participation, but noted that was only true in areas where
access to virtual platforms was not an issue, “The pandemic has created unforeseen and unique
challenges for counties, which has had a direct impact on service delivery. Several counties
reported increased participation rates in services since transportation is no longer a barrier,
however other counties reported families do not have access to the needed technology to
participate in services via a virtual environment.”
In summary, child welfare agencies made significant efforts to continue operations and ensure
the safety of CPS workers and the children and families in their care. While CPS agencies did
not see an increase in abuse or neglect referrals even after many lockdown restrictions were
lifted during July–September 2020, many states did not fully open up and many schools did not
go back to in-person learning until 2021. It may not be until FFY 2021 data are analyzed that
the full impact of the pandemic on child maltreatment is known.

The following pages contain the data tables referenced in chapter 7. Specific information about
state submissions can be found in Appendix D, State Commentary. Additional information
regarding the exhibits and tables is provided below.
General

analysis.
■ Data are from the Child File.
■ The percent change was calculated by subtracting 2019 data from 2020 data, dividing the
result by 2019 data, and multiplying by 100. States must have data included from both
years to be included in the percent change calculation.
Table 7–1 Screened-in Referrals by Quarters, 2019–2020

Table 7–2 Report Sources by Quarters, 2019–2020

■ States are excluded from this analysis if more than 15.0 percent had an unknown report
source
■ States are excluded from this analysis if more than 20.0 percent of known sources are
reported as Other.
■ A state must pass data quality tests for both years to be included in this analysis.

Table 7–3 Children Who Received an Investigation Response or Alternative
Response by Quarters, 2019–2020
■ The number of children is a unique count.
Table 7–4 Child Victims by Quarters, 2019–2020

Table 7–5 Single Year Age of Victims by Quarters, 2019–2020

■ Based on data from 52 states.
Table 7–6 Victims by Race and Ethnicity by Quarters, 2019–2020

■ Based on data from 50 states.
■ 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 7–7 Children Who Received Postresponse Services, 2018–2020

■ The numbers of victims and nonvictims are duplicate counts.
■ A child is counted each time that a CPS response was completed and services were
provided.
■ This analysis includes only those services that continued past or were initiated within 90
days after the completion of the CPS response.

■ States are excluded from this analysis if they report fewer than 1.0% of victims or fewer
than 1.0% of nonvictims with postresponse services.

Table 7–1 Screened-in Referrals by Quarters, 2019-2020 (continues next page)
FFY 2019 Total

State Oct-Dec 2018 Jan-Mar 2019 April-June 2019 July-Sept 2019 Screened-in Referrals
Alabama 7,622 6,711 7,922 6,401 28,656
Alaska 2,208 2,717 2,980 2,808 10,713
Arizona 11,484 11,174 11,631 11,013 45,302
Arkansas 9,176 8,640 9,268 6,671 33,755
California 57,370 55,560 59,545 52,169 224,644
Colorado 9,271 9,069 9,804 7,935 36,079
Connecticut 3,862 3,753 3,933 3,097 14,645
Delaware 1,503 1,713 1,424 1,362 6,002
District of Columbia 1,756 1,769 1,785 1,094 6,404
Florida 43,351 40,966 43,427 35,750 163,494
Georgia 22,054 22,004 22,131 19,120 85,309
Hawaii 636 611 589 541 2,377
Idaho 2,623 2,394 3,250 2,850 11,117
Illinois 21,761 21,088 22,014 21,842 86,705
Indiana 32,168 28,328 32,348 27,364 120,208
Iowa 8,246 8,075 9,205 7,793 33,319
Kansas 7,211 8,210 8,611 7,863 31,895
Kentucky 12,863 13,240 12,927 11,749 50,779
Louisiana 4,945 5,024 6,091 4,537 20,597
Maine 2,456 3,163 2,753 2,502 10,874
Maryland 4,910 5,511 6,380 5,085 21,886
Massachusetts 11,577 11,097 11,762 9,487 43,923
Michigan 24,171 22,366 26,144 23,054 95,735
Minnesota 7,450 7,986 8,838 6,785 31,059
Mississippi 7,679 6,832 7,134 6,461 28,106
Missouri 17,022 14,918 16,663 12,953 61,556
Montana 2,402 2,376 2,880 2,541 10,199
Nebraska 3,175 3,024 3,214 3,229 12,642
Nevada 4,032 3,777 4,103 3,745 15,657
New Hampshire 2,275 2,673 2,748 2,592 10,288
New Jersey 14,635 15,700 16,195 14,404 60,934
New Mexico 5,847 4,431 5,833 5,622 21,733
New York 37,931 42,350 43,503 40,133 163,917
North Carolina 15,666 14,842 13,225 11,389 55,122
North Dakota 1,005 1,026 1,038 916 3,985
Ohio 22,363 22,327 24,033 20,281 89,004
Oklahoma 10,061 8,360 9,320 9,017 36,758
Oregon 10,496 10,592 7,644 11,046 39,778
Pennsylvania 10,833 10,246 12,024 8,848 41,951
Puerto Rico 1,548 1,620 2,469 2,728 8,365
Rhode Island 1,806 1,823 1,951 1,714 7,294
South Carolina 12,266 11,967 12,625 10,247 47,105
South Dakota 603 622 653 501 2,379
Tennessee 18,977 18,950 19,518 18,717 76,162
Texas 49,731 50,745 53,143 44,487 198,106
Utah 5,275 5,240 5,539 4,855 20,909
Vermont 932 1,361 793 929 4,015
Virginia 7,566 8,508 10,574 10,132 36,780
Washington 9,369 10,626 11,675 12,204 43,874
West Virginia 6,294 6,790 6,484 7,351 26,919
Wisconsin 6,812 6,515 6,814 6,656 26,797
Wyoming 786 747 781 629 2,943
National 598,061 590,157 627,338 553,199 2,368,755

Table 7–1 Screened-in Referrals by Quarters, 2019-2020 (continues next page)
FFY 2020 Total

State Oct-Dec 2019 Jan-Mar 2020 April-June 2020 July-Sept 2020 Screened-in Referrals
Alabama 7,552 7,092 6,046 5,977 26,667
Alaska 2,400 2,662 4,728 1,643 11,433
Arizona 11,393 11,685 10,172 8,736 41,986
Arkansas 9,327 9,041 6,510 6,551 31,429
California 54,503 56,386 46,904 41,956 199,749
Colorado 9,309 9,170 7,729 7,245 33,453
Connecticut 3,465 3,540 2,194 1,831 11,030
Delaware 1,366 1,338 1,170 971 4,845
District of Columbia 1,317 1,309 862 795 4,283
Florida 39,055 38,352 31,926 31,306 140,639
Georgia 20,796 18,494 10,849 12,536 62,675
Hawaii 709 640 721 646 2,716
Idaho 2,779 2,582 1,938 2,155 9,454
Illinois 22,263 21,671 19,518 16,492 79,944
Indiana 31,967 32,505 22,030 25,366 111,868
Iowa 8,122 8,478 6,465 7,619 30,684
Kansas 8,081 9,756 5,996 4,510 28,343
Kentucky 11,823 13,788 11,527 9,132 46,270
Louisiana 4,735 4,766 4,602 3,129 17,232
Maine 3,502 2,723 2,548 2,519 11,292
Maryland 5,817 5,925 4,421 3,834 19,997
Massachusetts 10,967 11,102 6,903 8,533 37,505
Michigan 25,003 18,755 12,697 16,498 72,953
Minnesota 7,365 8,362 6,860 5,742 28,329
Mississippi 7,319 6,805 4,690 5,591 24,405
Missouri 15,822 14,662 13,537 11,282 55,303
Montana 2,444 2,947 2,519 2,210 10,120
Nebraska 3,382 3,704 2,860 3,248 13,194
Nevada 4,057 4,008 3,627 3,047 14,739
New Hampshire 2,603 3,568 2,623 2,022 10,816
New Jersey 15,295 16,705 11,274 9,579 52,853
New Mexico 5,370 5,663 6,796 4,299 22,128
New York 37,564 43,646 36,002 27,917 145,129
North Carolina 16,909 17,833 13,367 12,159 60,268
North Dakota 829 934 733 735 3,231
Ohio 22,365 23,249 17,469 18,100 81,183
Oklahoma 10,608 10,232 8,208 8,350 37,398
Oregon 8,139 9,211 10,912 7,199 35,461
Pennsylvania 10,730 11,036 6,751 7,348 35,865
Puerto Rico 1,574 1,421 1,510 2,494 6,999
Rhode Island 1,722 1,722 1,265 1,257 5,966
South Carolina 11,152 9,519 6,771 6,636 34,078
South Dakota 579 624 775 471 2,449
Tennessee 14,600 20,893 17,447 15,873 68,813
Texas 49,543 53,953 43,450 39,714 186,660
Utah 5,493 5,814 4,205 4,485 19,997
Vermont 883 969 452 426 2,730
Virginia 7,652 9,160 8,791 7,613 33,216
Washington 9,959 13,210 10,524 8,102 41,795
West Virginia 6,024 6,801 6,018 5,261 24,104
Wisconsin 6,167 7,044 5,752 5,196 24,159
Wyoming 711 698 508 564 2,481
National 583,111 606,153 484,152 446,900 2,120,316

Table 7–1 Screened-in Referrals by Quarters, 2019-2020
Percent Change Percent Change Percent Change Percent Change Percent Change
Oct-Dec 2018 to Jan-Mar 2019 to April-June 2019 to July-Sept 2019 to FFY 2019 to
State Oct-Dec 2019 Jan-Mar 2020 April-June 2020 July-Sept 2020 FFY 2020
Alabama -0.9 5.7 -23.7 -6.6 -6.9
Alaska 8.7 -2.0 58.7 -41.5 6.7
Arizona -0.8 4.6 -12.5 -20.7 -7.3
Arkansas 1.6 4.6 -29.8 -1.8 -6.9
California -5.0 1.5 -21.2 -19.6 -11.1
Colorado 0.4 1.1 -21.2 -8.7 -7.3
Connecticut -10.3 -5.7 -44.2 -40.9 -24.7
Delaware -9.1 -21.9 -17.8 -28.7 -19.3
District of Columbia -25.0 -26.0 -51.7 -27.3 -33.1
Florida -9.9 -6.4 -26.5 -12.4 -14.0
Georgia -5.7 -16.0 -51.0 -34.4 -26.5
Hawaii 11.5 4.7 22.4 19.4 14.3
Idaho 5.9 7.9 -40.4 -24.4 -15.0
Illinois 2.3 2.8 -11.3 -24.5 -7.8
Indiana -0.6 14.7 -31.9 -7.3 -6.9
Iowa -1.5 5.0 -29.8 -2.2 -7.9
Kansas 12.1 18.8 -30.4 -42.6 -11.1
Kentucky -8.1 4.1 -10.8 -22.3 -8.9
Louisiana -4.2 -5.1 -24.4 -31.0 -16.3
Maine 42.6 -13.9 -7.4 0.7 3.8
Maryland 18.5 7.5 -30.7 -24.6 -8.6
Massachusetts -5.3 0.0 -41.3 -10.1 -14.6
Michigan 3.4 -16.1 -51.4 -28.4 -23.8
Minnesota -1.1 4.7 -22.4 -15.4 -8.8
Mississippi -4.7 -0.4 -34.3 -13.5 -13.2
Missouri -7.0 -1.7 -18.8 -12.9 -10.2
Montana 1.7 24.0 -12.5 -13.0 -0.8
Nebraska 6.5 22.5 -11.0 0.6 4.4
Nevada 0.6 6.1 -11.6 -18.6 -5.9
New Hampshire 14.4 33.5 -4.5 -22.0 5.1
New Jersey 4.5 6.4 -30.4 -33.5 -13.3
New Mexico -8.2 27.8 16.5 -23.5 1.8
New York -1.0 3.1 -17.2 -30.4 -11.5
North Carolina 7.9 20.2 1.1 6.8 9.3
North Dakota -17.5 -9.0 -29.4 -19.8 -18.9
Ohio 0.0 4.1 -27.3 -10.8 -8.8
Oklahoma 5.4 22.4 -11.9 -7.4 1.7
Oregon -22.5 -13.0 42.8 -34.8 -10.9
Pennsylvania -1.0 7.7 -43.9 -17.0 -14.5
Puerto Rico 1.7 -12.3 -38.8 -8.6 -16.3
Rhode Island -4.7 -5.5 -35.2 -26.7 -18.2
South Carolina -9.1 -20.5 -46.4 -35.2 -27.7
South Dakota -4.0 0.3 18.7 -6.0 2.9
Tennessee -23.1 10.3 -10.6 -15.2 -9.6
Texas -0.4 6.3 -18.2 -10.7 -5.8
Utah 4.1 11.0 -24.1 -7.6 -4.4
Vermont -5.3 -28.8 -43.0 -54.1 -32.0
Virginia 1.1 7.7 -16.9 -24.9 -9.7
Washington 6.3 24.3 -9.9 -33.6 -4.7
West Virginia -4.3 0.2 -7.2 -28.4 -10.5
Wisconsin -9.5 8.1 -15.6 -21.9 -9.8
Wyoming -9.5 -6.6 -35.0 -10.3 -15.7
National -2.5 2.7 -22.8 -19.2 -10.5

Table 7–2 Report Sources by Quarters, 2019-2020 (continues below)
FFY 2019 FFY 2020
Oct-Dec Jan-Mar April-June July-Sept Total Report Oct-Dec Jan-Mar April-June July-Sept Total Report
Report Sources 2018 2019 2019 2019 Sources 2019 2020 2020 2020 Sources
PROFESSIONAL - - - - - - - - - -
Child Daycare Providers 3,380 3,245 3,922 3,979 14,526 3,391 3343 2,155 2,393 11,282
Education Personnel 128,730 134,405 145,881 57,125 466,141 126,522 138,106 60,654 15,139 340,421
Foster Care Providers 2,252 2,223 2,325 2,583 9,383 2,257 2,441 2,049 1,930 8,677
Legal and Law Enforcement Personnel 102,788 99,396 106,893 114,132 423,209 100,845 102,120 102,575 106,736 412,276
Medical Personnel 60,636 61,656 62,693 62,822 247,807 58,915 61,475 53,224 53,772 227,386
Mental Health Personnel 32,844 33,384 36,433 31,409 134,070 33,046 35,632 28,048 24,321 121,047
Social Services Personnel 54,130 54,172 58,110 56,365 222,777 52,520 55,483 45,683 43,392 197,078
Total Professionals 384,760 388,481 416,257 328,415 1,517,913 377,496 398,600 294,388 247,683 1,318,167
NONPROFESSIONAL - - - - - - - - - -
Alleged Perpetrators 161 108 148 159 576 146 142 113 145 546
Alleged Victims 2,138 2,181 2,212 2,124 8,655 2,071 2,176 1,896 2,012 8,155
Friends and Neighbors 19,898 17,042 19,090 22,556 78,586 18,841 16,854 18,354 20,886 74,935
Other Relatives 32,838 30,548 31,463 35,935 130,784 30,525 29,996 28,868 32,233 121,622
Parents 32,342 31,362 32,607 35,525 131,836 30,755 31,482 29,701 33,524 125,462
Total Nonprofessionals 87,377 81,241 85,520 96,299 350,437 82,338 80,650 78,932 88,800 330,720
UNCLASSIFIED - - - - - - - - - -
Anonymous Sources 36,576 33,968 37,575 38,989 147,108 35,574 35,918 31,667 33,881 137,040
Other 41,224 39,166 42,291 44,719 167,400 39,919 40,540 36,043 37,787 154,289
Unknown 8,806 8,281 9,241 9,464 35,792 8,797 8,998 7,957 7,938 33,690
Total Unclassified 86,606 81,415 89,107 93,172 350,300 84,290 85,456 75,667 79,606 325,019
National 558,743 551,137 590,884 517,886 2,218,650 544,124 564,706 448,987 416,089 1,973,906
Table 7–2 Report Sources by Quarters, 2019-2020

Report Sources Oct-Dec 2019 Jan-Mar 2020 April-June 2020 July-Sept 2020 FFY 2020
PROFESSIONAL - - - - -
Child Daycare Providers 0.3 3.0 -45.1 -39.9 -22.3

Education Personnel -1.7 2.8 -58.4 -73.5 -27.0
Foster Care Providers 0.2 9.8 -11.9 -25.3 -7.5
Legal and Law Enforcement Personnel -1.9 2.7 -4.0 -6.5 -2.6
Medical Personnel -2.8 -0.3 -15.1 -14.4 -8.2
Mental Health Personnel 0.6 6.7 -23.0 -22.6 -9.7
Social Services Personnel -3.0 2.4 -21.4 -23.0 -11.5
Total Professionals -1.9 2.6 -29.3 -24.6 -13.2
NONPROFESSIONAL - - - - -
Alleged Perpetrators -9.3 31.5 -23.6 -8.8 -5.2

Alleged Victims -3.1 -0.2 -14.3 -5.3 -5.8
Friends and Neighbors -5.3 -1.1 -3.9 -7.4 -4.6
Other Relatives -7.0 -1.8 -8.2 -10.3 -7.0
Parents -4.9 0.4 -8.9 -5.6 -4.8
Total Nonprofessionals -5.8 -0.7 -7.7 -7.8 -5.6
UNCLASSIFIED - - - - -
Anonymous Sources -2.7 5.7 -15.7 -13.1 -6.8
Other -3.2 3.5 -14.8 -15.5 -7.8
Unknown -0.1 8.7 -13.9 -16.1 -5.9
Total Unclassified -2.7 5.0 -15.1 -14.6 -7.2
National -2.6 2.5 -24.0 -19.7 -11.0

Table 7–3 Children Who Received an Investigation or Alternative
Response by Quarters, 2019–2020 (continues next page)
FFY 2019
State Oct-Dec 2018 Jan-Mar 2019 April-June 2019 July-Sept 2019 Total Children
Alabama 11,285 9,306 10,491 8,253 39,335
Alaska 3,494 3,891 3,736 3,308 14,429
Arizona 23,261 21,065 20,410 17,600 82,336
Arkansas 17,019 14,708 15,012 10,600 57,339
California 99,842 87,400 86,160 70,134 343,536
Colorado 13,366 11,755 11,647 9,081 45,849
Connecticut 5,329 4,837 4,738 3,765 18,669
Delaware 3,282 3,655 2,849 2,587 12,373
Florida 88,757 72,847 70,935 52,602 285,141
Georgia 47,834 41,593 37,469 30,809 157,705
Hawaii 1,231 1,179 1,044 924 4,378
Idaho 3,797 3,036 3,657 2,895 13,385
Illinois 44,243 37,592 36,134 33,521 151,490
Indiana 48,362 35,134 35,644 28,732 147,872
Iowa 11,291 9,415 9,841 7,706 38,253
Kansas 8,800 8,611 8,253 7,213 32,877
Kentucky 22,848 20,897 18,563 15,204 77,512
Louisiana 7,137 6,716 7,704 5,809 27,366
Maine 3,821 4,312 4,476 3,679 16,288
Maryland 7,673 8,161 9,270 7,092 32,196
Massachusetts 22,161 19,084 18,526 13,191 72,962
Michigan 49,066 38,496 40,398 33,098 161,058
Minnesota 10,336 10,076 10,330 7,948 38,690
Mississippi 12,155 9,350 9,209 8,124 38,838
Missouri 21,280 16,403 16,830 12,809 67,322
Montana 4,388 3,742 4,103 3,167 15,400
Nebraska 7,235 6,146 6,235 5,696 25,312
Nevada 8,384 7,326 7,489 6,240 29,439
New Hampshire 3,314 3,501 3,283 2,700 12,798
New Jersey 21,505 20,550 19,856 16,830 78,741
New Mexico 7,983 5,424 6,550 6,083 26,040
New York 60,045 57,989 52,740 45,242 216,016
North Carolina 30,944 27,828 23,074 18,240 100,086
North Dakota 1,788 1,785 1,633 1,391 6,597
Ohio 32,162 28,646 28,623 23,640 113,071
Oklahoma 17,518 13,151 13,847 12,988 57,504
Oregon 16,732 15,718 9,806 12,807 55,063
Pennsylvania 10,737 9,984 11,748 8,593 41,062
Puerto Rico 2,707 2,881 4,429 5,027 15,044
Rhode Island 2,644 2,398 2,356 1,936 9,334
South Carolina 26,632 21,815 20,949 15,476 84,872
South Dakota 1,077 1,101 1,097 764 4,039
Tennessee 26,969 24,163 22,998 20,816 94,946
Texas 75,447 72,591 70,981 58,985 278,004
Utah 7,528 6,863 6,711 5,824 26,926
Vermont 1,121 1,572 839 897 4,429
Virginia 11,132 11,632 13,589 12,985 49,338
Washington 11,914 12,205 12,463 12,592 49,174
West Virginia 12,949 13,649 12,621 14,272 53,491
Wisconsin 10,116 8,587 8,409 7,993 35,105
Wyoming 1,573 1,295 1,273 952 5,093
National 1,006,274 885,493 864,150 720,521 3,476,438

Table 7–3 Children Who Received an Investigation or Alternative
Response by Quarters, 2019–2020 (continues next page)
FFY 2020
State Oct-Dec 2019 Jan-Mar 2020 April-June 2020 July-Sept 2020 Total Children
Alabama 11,272 9,794 8,102 7,763 36,931
Alaska 3,931 3,705 6,139 1,685 15,460
Arizona 23,339 22,168 17,623 14,016 77,146
Arkansas 18,116 15,541 10,821 10,297 54,775
California 95,041 88,816 67,231 55,831 306,919
Colorado 13,457 11,889 9,571 8,566 43,483
Connecticut 4,753 4,422 2,683 2,277 14,135
Delaware 3,257 3,029 2,474 1,912 10,672
Florida 81,057 69,851 53,166 47,075 251,149
Georgia 45,349 35,591 19,368 21,287 121,595
Hawaii 1,381 1,252 1,281 1,024 4,938
Idaho 4,213 3,390 2,503 2,663 12,769
Illinois 45,575 38,674 31,640 24,873 140,762
Indiana 47,483 39,573 25,002 27,285 139,343
Iowa 11,064 9,955 6,949 7,501 35,469
Kansas 9,676 9,904 5,688 4,284 29,552
Kentucky 19,631 20,151 15,755 11,529 67,066
Louisiana 6,898 6,424 6,002 4,229 23,553
Maine 7,301 4,579 3,630 3,361 18,871
Maryland 9,907 9,195 6,128 4,622 29,852
Massachusetts 21,278 18,956 10,414 12,181 62,829
Michigan 50,516 32,846 20,505 25,404 129,271
Minnesota 10,547 10,705 8,288 6,734 36,274
Mississippi 11,241 9,122 6,130 6,957 33,450
Missouri 20,013 16,370 14,217 11,459 62,059
Montana 4,543 4,835 3,382 2,768 15,528
Nebraska 7,947 7,475 5,084 5,458 25,964
Nevada 8,622 7,814 6,603 4,941 27,980
New Hampshire 3,702 4,667 2,921 2,046 13,336
New Jersey 22,468 22,181 14,179 11,351 70,179
New Mexico 7,053 6,635 7,629 4,663 25,980
New York 58,935 59,103 44,032 32,057 194,127
North Carolina 33,881 33,326 22,630 18,648 108,485
North Dakota 1,562 1,649 1,226 1,133 5,570
Ohio 31,916 30,004 21,399 21,431 104,750
Oklahoma 18,404 16,230 11,943 11,802 58,379
Oregon 12,752 13,145 13,932 8,332 48,161
Pennsylvania 10,689 10,911 6,631 7,216 35,447
Puerto Rico 2,755 2,555 2,733 4,467 12,510
Rhode Island 2,606 2,365 1,611 1,480 8,062
South Carolina 23,791 17,505 11,487 10,284 63,067
South Dakota 987 1,057 1,232 756 4,032
Tennessee 20,532 26,830 20,902 17,845 86,109
Texas 74,136 76,357 59,898 53,102 263,493
Utah 7,923 7,566 5,163 5,208 25,860
Vermont 1,048 1,159 504 467 3,178
Virginia 11,220 12,255 11,539 9,888 44,902
Washington 12,470 15,111 11,340 8,454 47,375
West Virginia 12,847 14,041 11,961 10,279 49,128
Wisconsin 9,146 9,311 7,219 6,386 32,062
Wyoming 1,396 1,075 748 787 4,006
National 982,672 903,845 670,804 587,323 3,144,644

Alternative Response by Quarters, 2019–2020
Alabama -0.1 5.2 -22.8 -5.9 -6.1
Alaska 12.5 -4.8 64.3 -49.1 7.1
Arizona 0.3 5.2 -13.7 -20.4 -6.3
Arkansas 6.4 5.7 -27.9 -2.9 -4.5
California -4.8 1.6 -22.0 -20.4 -10.7
Colorado 0.7 1.1 -17.8 -5.7 -5.2
Connecticut -10.8 -8.6 -43.4 -39.5 -24.3
Delaware -0.8 -17.1 -13.2 -26.1 -13.7
District of Columbia -25.0 -19.0 -49.8 -26.0 -29.8
Florida -8.7 -4.1 -25.0 -10.5 -11.9
Georgia -5.2 -14.4 -48.3 -30.9 -22.9
Hawaii 12.2 6.2 22.7 10.8 12.8
Idaho 11.0 11.7 -31.6 -8.0 -4.6
Illinois 3.0 2.9 -12.4 -25.8 -7.1
Indiana -1.8 12.6 -29.9 -5.0 -5.8
Iowa -2.0 5.7 -29.4 -2.7 -7.3
Kansas 10.0 15.0 -31.1 -40.6 -10.1
Kentucky -14.1 -3.6 -15.1 -24.2 -13.5
Louisiana -3.3 -4.3 -22.1 -27.2 -13.9
Maine 91.1 6.2 -18.9 -8.6 15.9
Maryland 29.1 12.7 -33.9 -34.8 -7.3
Massachusetts -4.0 -0.7 -43.8 -7.7 -13.9
Michigan 3.0 -14.7 -49.2 -23.2 -19.7
Minnesota 2.0 6.2 -19.8 -15.3 -6.2
Mississippi -7.5 -2.4 -33.4 -14.4 -13.9
Missouri -6.0 -0.2 -15.5 -10.5 -7.8
Montana 3.5 29.2 -17.6 -12.6 0.8
Nebraska 9.8 21.6 -18.5 -4.2 2.6
Nevada 2.8 6.7 -11.8 -20.8 -5.0
New Hampshire 11.7 33.3 -11.0 -24.2 4.2
New Jersey 4.5 7.9 -28.6 -32.6 -10.9
New Mexico -11.6 22.3 16.5 -23.3 -0.2
New York -1.8 1.9 -16.5 -29.1 -10.1
North Carolina 9.5 19.8 -1.9 2.2 8.4
North Dakota -12.6 -7.6 -24.9 -18.5 -15.6
Ohio -0.8 4.7 -25.2 -9.3 -7.4
Oklahoma 5.1 23.4 -13.8 -9.1 1.5
Oregon -23.8 -16.4 42.1 -34.9 -12.5
Pennsylvania -0.4 9.3 -43.6 -16.0 -13.7
Puerto Rico 1.8 -11.3 -38.3 -11.1 -16.8
Rhode Island -1.4 -1.4 -31.6 -23.6 -13.6
South Carolina -10.7 -19.8 -45.2 -33.5 -25.7
South Dakota -8.4 -4.0 12.3 -1.0 -0.2
Tennessee -23.9 11.0 -9.1 -14.3 -9.3
Texas -1.7 5.2 -15.6 -10.0 -5.2
Utah 5.2 10.2 -23.1 -10.6 -4.0
Vermont -6.5 -26.3 -39.9 -47.9 -28.2
Virginia 0.8 5.4 -15.1 -23.9 -9.0
Washington 4.7 23.8 -9.0 -32.9 -3.7
West Virginia -0.8 2.9 -5.2 -28.0 -8.2
Wisconsin -9.6 8.4 -14.2 -20.1 -8.7
Wyoming -11.3 -17.0 -41.2 -17.3 -21.3
National -2.3 2.1 -22.4 -18.5 -9.5

Table 7–4 Child Victims by Quarters, 2019–2020 (continues next page)
FFY 2019
State Oct-Dec 2018 Jan-Mar 2019 April-June 2019 July-Sept 2019 Total Victims
Alabama 2,924 2,739 3,129 2,885 11,677
Alaska 710 693 867 789 3,059
Arizona 3,007 3,188 3,110 3,542 12,847
Arkansas 2,164 2,070 2,232 1,956 8,422
California 16,086 15,635 15,890 16,521 64,132
Colorado 3,079 3,147 3,132 2,888 12,246
Connecticut 2,035 2,007 2,086 1,914 8,042
Delaware 294 324 306 324 1,248
District of Columbia 490 432 567 368 1,857
Florida 8,745 8,303 8,185 7,682 32,915
Georgia 2,655 2,504 2,587 2,356 10,102
Hawaii 357 354 311 320 1,342
Idaho 489 439 524 417 1,869
Illinois 8,231 7,543 8,407 9,150 33,331
Indiana 6,088 5,510 5,893 5,538 23,029
Iowa 2,872 2,814 3,119 2,843 11,648
Kansas 692 762 770 721 2,945
Kentucky 5,595 5,126 4,807 4,602 20,130
Louisiana 2,308 1,991 2,347 1,795 8,441
Maine 1,061 1,238 1,104 1,010 4,413
Maryland 1,755 1,925 2,026 1,955 7,661
Massachusetts 6,884 6,290 6,259 5,596 25,029
Michigan 8,722 7,734 8,266 8,321 33,043
Minnesota 1,701 1,692 1,645 1,742 6,780
Mississippi 2,562 2,192 2,211 2,412 9,377
Missouri 1,251 1,126 1,232 1,153 4,762
Montana 938 916 991 891 3,736
Nebraska 947 807 532 536 2,822
Nevada 1,310 1,139 1,244 1,297 4,990
New Hampshire 300 303 339 275 1,217
New Jersey 1,267 1,320 1,339 1,206 5,132
New Mexico 2,287 1,713 2,037 1,988 8,025
New York 17,378 17,553 17,196 15,142 67,269
North Carolina 1,574 1,445 1,317 1,265 5,601
North Dakota 459 485 431 422 1,797
Ohio 6,349 6,327 6,691 6,103 25,470
Oklahoma 4,011 3,653 3,718 3,766 15,148
Oregon 3,712 3,731 2,685 3,415 13,543
Pennsylvania 1,176 1,123 1,331 1,187 4,817
Puerto Rico 1,026 1,028 1,353 1,331 4,738
Rhode Island 772 817 801 793 3,183
South Carolina 4,971 4,474 5,022 4,250 18,717
South Dakota 352 406 454 325 1,537
Tennessee 2,361 2,383 2,491 2,624 9,859
Texas 15,620 16,348 16,211 15,914 64,093
Utah 2,662 2,669 2,727 2,521 10,579
Vermont 250 260 165 176 851
Virginia 1,302 1,481 1,716 1,660 6,159
Washington 1,073 1,003 1,064 1,082 4,222
West Virginia 1,560 1,767 1,654 1,746 6,727
Wisconsin 1,188 1,052 1,181 1,155 4,576
Wyoming 259 258 318 261 1,096
National 167,861 162,239 166,020 160,131 656,251

Table 7–4 Child Victims by Quarters, 2019–2020 (continues next page)
FFY 2020
State Oct-Dec 2019 Jan-Mar 2020 April-June 2020 July-Sept 2020 Total Victims
Alabama 2,852 3,059 2,801 2,951 11,663
Alaska 747 798 1,084 583 3,212
Arizona 3,000 2,912 1,895 2,147 9,954
Arkansas 2,343 2,403 2,150 2,345 9,241
California 16,070 15,865 14,078 14,304 60,317
Colorado 3,087 3,036 2,834 2,658 11,615
Connecticut 1,844 1,932 1,311 1,259 6,346
Delaware 325 277 327 271 1,200
District of Columbia 504 458 304 302 1,568
Florida 7,206 7,235 7,040 6,787 28,268
Georgia 2,248 2,279 1,867 2,296 8,690
Hawaii 406 320 321 247 1,294
Idaho 468 518 466 506 1,958
Illinois 9,518 9,376 8,525 8,018 35,437
Indiana 5,722 6,450 5,025 5,451 22,648
Iowa 2,756 2,977 2,355 2,512 10,600
Kansas 641 701 525 519 2,386
Kentucky 4,427 4,765 4,108 3,448 16,748
Louisiana 1,927 1,731 1,722 1,479 6,859
Maine 1,498 1,165 1,008 1,055 4,726
Maryland 1,874 1,917 1,766 1,685 7,242
Massachusetts 6,699 6,544 4,258 5,037 22,538
Michigan 8,783 6,902 4,847 6,400 26,932
Minnesota 1,824 1,839 1,615 1,369 6,647
Mississippi 2,373 2,187 1,587 1,989 8,136
Missouri 1,130 1,090 1,203 1,026 4,449
Montana 931 1,137 862 847 3,777
Nebraska 571 512 755 538 2,376
Nevada 1,269 1,255 1,303 1,189 5,016
New Hampshire 261 315 356 250 1,182
New Jersey 1,119 1,015 878 643 3,655
New Mexico 1,635 1,811 2,143 1,461 7,050
New York 16,484 17,747 13,678 11,217 59,126
North Carolina 6,114 6,620 5,082 4,583 22,399
North Dakota 406 506 354 348 1,614
Ohio 6,305 6,541 5,248 5,597 23,691
Oklahoma 4,154 4,014 3,230 3,287 14,685
Oregon 2,822 2,840 3,281 2,544 11,487
Pennsylvania 1,103 1,248 1,023 1,208 4,582
Puerto Rico 965 932 702 973 3,572
Rhode Island 796 711 635 601 2,743
South Carolina 4,328 3,923 2,988 3,024 14,263
South Dakota 376 422 464 308 1,570
Tennessee 1,679 2,524 2,217 2,267 8,687
Texas 15,421 16,563 17,068 16,064 65,116
Utah 2,628 2,700 2,301 2,065 9,694
Vermont 197 194 74 65 530
Virginia 1,303 1,386 1,603 1,366 5,658
Washington 1,071 1,118 939 839 3,967
West Virginia 1,525 1,705 1,503 1,383 6,116
Wisconsin 1,032 1,115 1,002 1,028 4,177
Wyoming 280 279 242 191 992
National 165,047 167,869 144,953 140,530 618,399

Table 7–4 Child Victims by Quarters, 2019–2020
Alabama -2.5 11.7 -10.5 2.3 -0.1
Alaska 5.2 15.2 25.0 -26.1 5.0
Arizona -0.2 -8.7 -39.1 -39.4 -22.5
Arkansas 8.3 16.1 -3.7 19.9 9.7
California -0.1 1.5 -11.4 -13.4 -5.9
Colorado 0.3 -3.5 -9.5 -8.0 -5.2
Connecticut -9.4 -3.7 -37.2 -34.2 -21.1
Delaware 10.5 -14.5 6.9 -16.4 -3.8
District of Columbia 2.9 6.0 -46.4 -17.9 -15.6
Florida -17.6 -12.9 -14.0 -11.7 -14.1
Georgia -15.3 -9.0 -27.8 -2.5 -14.0
Hawaii 13.7 -9.6 3.2 -22.8 -3.6
Idaho -4.3 18.0 -11.1 21.3 4.8
Illinois 15.6 24.3 1.4 -12.4 6.3
Indiana -6.0 17.1 -14.7 -1.6 -1.7
Iowa -4.0 5.8 -24.5 -11.6 -9.0
Kansas -7.4 -8.0 -31.8 -28.0 -19.0
Kentucky -20.9 -7.0 -14.5 -25.1 -16.8
Louisiana -16.5 -13.1 -26.6 -17.6 -18.7
Maine 41.2 -5.9 -8.7 4.5 7.1
Maryland 6.8 -0.4 -12.8 -13.8 -5.5
Massachusetts -2.7 4.0 -32.0 -10.0 -10.0
Michigan 0.7 -10.8 -41.4 -23.1 -18.5
Minnesota 7.2 8.7 -1.8 -21.4 -2.0
Mississippi -7.4 -0.2 -28.2 -17.5 -13.2
Missouri -9.7 -3.2 -2.4 -11.0 -6.6
Montana -0.7 24.1 -13.0 -4.9 1.1
Nebraska -39.7 -36.6 41.9 0.4 -15.8
Nevada -3.1 10.2 4.7 -8.3 0.5
New Hampshire -13.0 4.0 5.0 -9.1 -2.9
New Jersey -11.7 -23.1 -34.4 -46.7 -28.8
New Mexico -28.5 5.7 5.2 -26.5 -12.1
New York -5.1 1.1 -20.5 -25.9 -12.1
North Carolina 288.4 358.1 285.9 262.3 299.9
North Dakota -11.5 4.3 -17.9 -17.5 -10.2
Ohio -0.7 3.4 -21.6 -8.3 -7.0
Oklahoma 3.6 9.9 -13.1 -12.7 -3.1
Oregon -24.0 -23.9 22.2 -25.5 -15.2
Pennsylvania -6.2 11.1 -23.1 1.8 -4.9
Puerto Rico -5.9 -9.3 -48.1 -26.9 -24.6
Rhode Island 3.1 -13.0 -20.7 -24.2 -13.8
South Carolina -12.9 -12.3 -40.5 -28.8 -23.8
South Dakota 6.8 3.9 2.2 -5.2 2.1
Tennessee -28.9 5.9 -11.0 -13.6 -11.9
Texas -1.3 1.3 5.3 0.9 1.6
Utah -1.3 1.2 -15.6 -18.1 -8.4
Vermont -21.2 -25.4 -55.2 -63.1 -37.7
Virginia 0.1 -6.4 -6.6 -17.7 -8.1
Washington -0.2 11.5 -11.7 -22.5 -6.0
West Virginia -2.2 -3.5 -9.1 -20.8 -9.1
Wisconsin -13.1 6.0 -15.2 -11.0 -8.7
Wyoming 8.1 8.1 -23.9 -26.8 -9.5
National -1.7 3.5 -12.7 -12.2 -5.8

Table 7–5 Single Year Age of Victims by Quarters, 2019-2020
(continues below)
FFY 2019
Age Oct-Dec 2018 Jan-Mar 2019 April-June 2019 July-Sept 2019 Total Victims
<1 24,721 24,493 23,830 24,839 97,883
1 11,298 10,821 10,938 11,359 44,416
2 10,861 9,941 10,564 10,712 42,078
3 10,242 9,491 10,184 10,391 40,308
4 9,696 9,425 9,579 10,013 38,713
5 9,767 9,267 9,324 9,497 37,855
6 9,279 9,097 9,232 8,697 36,305
7 8,994 8,469 8,959 8,152 34,574
8 8,563 8,327 8,554 7,568 33,012
9 8,608 8,114 8,481 7,693 32,896
10 8,291 7,981 8,260 7,662 32,194
11 7,915 7,720 8,044 7,332 31,011
12 7,690 7,638 8,001 7,214 30,543
13 7,350 7,299 7,439 6,741 28,829
14 6,990 7,026 7,229 6,563 27,808
15 6,864 6,839 6,970 6,148 26,821
16 5,980 5,791 5,880 5,228 22,879
17 4,050 3,902 3,888 3,697 15,537
Unborn, Unknown,
and 18–21 702 598 664 625 2,589
National 167,861 162,239 166,020 160,131 656,251

(continues on next page)
FFY 2020
Age Oct-Dec 2019 Jan-Mar 2020 April-June 2020 July-Sept 2020 Total Victims
<1 23,606 24,494 22,811 23,156 94,067
1 11,185 11,035 10,398 9,915 42,533
2 10,497 10,365 9,692 9,579 40,133
3 10,122 9,788 9,133 9,086 38,129
4 9,605 9,698 8,659 8,503 36,465
5 9,577 9,539 8,527 8,303 35,946
6 9,138 9,451 7,780 7,523 33,892
7 8,822 8,912 7,388 6,969 32,091
8 8,428 8,331 6,960 6,544 30,263
9 8,140 8,267 6,622 6,318 29,347
10 7,998 8,311 6,571 6,183 29,063
11 8,005 7,878 6,408 6,069 28,360
12 7,768 8,041 6,525 6,387 28,721
13 7,558 8,011 6,516 6,181 28,266
14 7,188 7,667 6,013 5,832 26,700
15 6,836 7,235 5,871 5,461 25,403
16 5,946 6,102 4,999 4,768 21,815
17 4,066 4,147 3,581 3,277 15,071
Unborn, Unknown,
and 18–21 562 597 499 476 2,134
National 165,047 167,869 144,953 140,530 618,399

Age Oct-Dec 2019 Jan-Mar 2020 April-June 2020 July-Sept 2020 FFY 2020
<1 -4.5 0.0 -4.3 -6.8 -3.9
1 -1.0 2.0 -4.9 -12.7 -4.2
2 -3.4 4.3 -8.3 -10.6 -4.6
3 -1.2 3.1 -10.3 -12.6 -5.4
4 -0.9 2.9 -9.6 -15.1 -5.8
5 -1.9 2.9 -8.5 -12.6 -5.0
6 -1.5 3.9 -15.7 -13.5 -6.6
7 -1.9 5.2 -17.5 -14.5 -7.2
8 -1.6 0.0 -18.6 -13.5 -8.3
9 -5.4 1.9 -21.9 -17.9 -10.8
10 -3.5 4.1 -20.4 -19.3 -9.7
11 1.1 2.0 -20.3 -17.2 -8.5
12 1.0 5.3 -18.4 -11.5 -6.0
13 2.8 9.8 -12.4 -8.3 -2.0
14 2.8 9.1 -16.8 -11.1 -4.0
15 -0.4 5.8 -15.8 -11.2 -5.3
16 -0.6 5.4 -15.0 -8.8 -4.7
17 0.4 6.3 -7.9 -11.4 -3.0
Unborn, Unknown,
and 18–21 -19.9 -0.2 -24.8 -23.8 -17.6
National -1.7 3.5 -12.7 -12.2 -5.8

Table 7–6 Victims by Race and Ethnicity by Quarters, 2019-2020 (continues below)
Oct-Dec Jan-Mar April-June July-Sept FFY 2019 Oct-Dec Jan-Mar April-June July-Sept FFY 2020
Race or Ethnicity 2018 2019 2019 2019 Total Victims 2019 2020 2020 2020 Total Victims
SINGLE RACE - - - - - - - - - -
African-American 33,827 32,673 34,844 32,479 133,823 34,916 35,070 29,563 28,512 128,061
American Indian or Alaska Native 2,350 2,141 2,227 2,345 9,063 2,387 2,491 2,440 1,869 9,187
Asian 1,454 1,621 1,678 1,549 6,302 1,615 1,695 1,449 1,303 6,062
Hispanic 38,129 38,096 38,276 36,722 151,223 37,895 38,960 34,283 32,169 143,307
Pacific Islander 390 385 375 401 1,551 385 365 333 313 1,396
Unknown 6,563 6,285 6,112 6,713 25,673 5,370 5,806 5,598 6,150 22,924
White 72,870 69,052 69,824 67,454 279,200 70,462 70,849 60,406 59,382 261,099
MULTIPLE RACE - - - - - - - - - -
Two or More Races 8,891 8,575 8,840 8,513 34,819 9,373 9,177 7,962 7,592 34,104
National 164,474 158,828 162,176 156,176 641,654 162,403 164,413 142,034 137,290 606,140
Based on data from 50 states
Table 7–6 Victims by Race and Ethnicity by Quarters, 2019-2020

Percent Change
Percent Change Percent Change April-June Percent Change Percent Change
Oct-Dec 2018 to Jan-Mar 2019 to 2019 to July-Sept 2019 to FFY 2019 to
Race or Ethnicity Oct-Dec 2019 Jan-Mar 2020 April-June 2020 July-Sept 2020 FFY 2020
SINGLE RACE - - - - -
African-American 3.2 7.3 -15.2 -12.2 -4.3
American Indian or Alaska Native 1.6 16.3 9.6 -20.3 1.4
Asian 11.1 4.6 -13.6 -15.9 -3.8
Hispanic -0.6 2.3 -10.4 -12.4 -5.2
Pacific Islander -1.3 -5.2 -11.2 -21.9 -10.0
Unknown -18.2 -7.6 -8.4 -8.4 -10.7
White -3.3 2.6 -13.5 -12.0 -6.5
MULTIPLE RACE - - - - -
Two or More Races 5.4 7.0 -9.9 -10.8 -2.1
National -1.3 3.5 -12.4 -12.1 -5.5
Table 7–7 Children who Received Postresponse Services

2018–2020 (by year)
Victims Who Nonvictims
Victims Who Received Nonvictims Who Received
Received Postresponse Who Received Postresponse
Reporting Postresponse Services Postresponse Services
Year States Victims Services Percent Nonvictims Services Percent
2018 50 645,338 391,800 60.7 3,282,349 954,807 29.1
2019 50 625,971 380,496 60.8 3,242,884 899,504 27.7
2020 51 598,500 357,057 59.7 2,956,134 802,237 27.1

Appendixes
Child Maltreatment 2020 Appendixes 116

CAPTA Data Items
APPENDIX A
The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA), as amended by P.L. 111–320,
the CAPTA Reauthorization Act of 2010, affirms, “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
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) 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.
7)
a) The number of child protective service personnel responsible for the—
i.) intake of reports filed 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.
1 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 Trafficking 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.
Child Maltreatment 2020 A ppendix A: CAPTA Data Items 117

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.
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, qualifications, 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, qualifications, 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 five 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) identified 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).
Child Maltreatment 2020 A ppendix A: CAPTA Data Items 118

Glossary
APPENDIX B
Acronyms
AFCARS: Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System
AFCARS ID: Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System identifier
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 identifier
CPS: Child protective services
FFY: Federal fiscal 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: Office of Management and Budget
PERPETRATOR ID: Perpetrator identifier
PSSF: Promoting Safe and Stable Families
REPORT ID: Report identifier
SDC: Summary data component
SSBG: Social Services Block Grant
TANF: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
WORKER ID: Worker identifier
Child Maltreatment 2020 A ppendix B: Glossary 119

Definitions
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 file submitted by a state to NCANDS on an annual basis. The file
contains supplemental aggregated child abuse and neglect data from such agencies as medi-
cal examiners’ offices 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.

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 affiliation or community attachment. Race may be self-identified or identified by
a caregiver.
ANONYMOUS REPORT SOURCE: An individual who notifies 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-identified or identified 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-identified or identified 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 file of

child-specific records for each report of alleged child abuse and neglect that received a CPS
response. Only completed reports that resulted in a disposition (or finding) as an outcome of
the CPS response during the reporting year, are submitted in each state’s data file. 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 specified
by the child protection law of the state in which the child resides. For sex trafficking victims
only, a state may define a child as a person who has not attained the age of 24.
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 nonprofit 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 final 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 sufficient 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 file submitted by a state to NCANDS. The file contains child-specific
records for each report of alleged child abuse and neglect that received a CPS response. Only
completed reports that resulted in a disposition (or finding) as an outcome of the CPS response
during the reporting year, are submitted in each state’s data file.
CHILD IDENTIFIER (Child ID): A unique identification assigned to each child. This
identification is not the state’s child identification but is an encrypted identification assigned
by the state for the purposes of the NCANDS data collection.
CHILD MALTREATMENT: The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) defini-
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.
CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES (CPS) AGENCY: An official 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 specific finding
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).

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, filing 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 identified 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 sufficient

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 inflicted 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.

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.
FAMILY: 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 reunification of the child safely and appropriately within
a timely fashion and to ensure the strength and stability of the reunification. 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
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’ confidence 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 fiscal year is designated by the calendar
year in which it ends.
FEDERAL INFORMATION PROCESSING STANDARDS (FIPS): The federally

defined set of county codes for all states.
FINDING: See DISPOSITION.
FETAL ALCOHOL SPECTRUM DISORDERS: Scientists define 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/alcohol-health/fetal-alcohol-exposure
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.

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.

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 identified 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 deficits 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
Trafficking 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.

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 office, 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 specific
finding 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 trafficking, 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 flag
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 financially able to do so, or offered
financial 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.

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 flexible funding to assist youth with transitioning from foster care to self-sufficiency.
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.
NEGLECT OR DEPRIVATION OF NECESSITIES: A type of maltreatment that refers to

the failure by the caregiver to provide needed, age-appropriate care although financially able
to do so or offered financial 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 finding 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.
NONVICTIM: A child with a maltreatment disposition of alternative response nonvictim,

alternative response victim, unsubstantiated, closed with no finding, 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 office 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 field 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 defined in
NCANDS (i.e. behavior problem, emotional disturbance, learning disability, intellectual
disability, physically disabled, and visually or hearing impaired). The not otherwise classi-
fied 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 first-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.
PACIFIC ISLANDER: A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii,
Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands.
PARENT: 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.

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 identification

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 filed.
PLAN OF SAFE CARE: A plan developed as described in CAPTA sections 106(b)(2)(B)(iii)

for infants born and identified 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 field.
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 bifida, 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 first 90 days after the disposition
of the report.
PREVENTION SERVICES: Activities aimed at preventing child abuse and neglect. Such
activities may be directed at specific populations identified as being at increased risk of
becoming abusive and maybe designed to increase the strength and stability of families,
to increase parents’ confidence 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 defined as a determination that took place prior to the disposition date of
the report being included in the dataset.

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
reunification 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 identifies himself or herself
as a member, or of which the parent identifies the child as a member. See AMERICAN
INDIAN OR ALASKA NATIVE, ASIAN, BLACK OR AFRICAN-AMERICAN, PACIFIC
ISLANDER, WHITE, and UNKNOWN. Also, see HISPANIC.
RECEIPT OF REPORT: The log-in of a referral to the agency alleging child maltreatment.
REFERRAL: Notification 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 field 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 definition of “appropriate services” is deter-
mined by each state. This is not considered an NCANDS service field.
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 first
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.
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 notified 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 final 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 identification 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 notifies a CPS agency of
alleged child maltreatment.
REPORTING PERIOD: The 12-month period for which data are 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 defined 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 referral
may include more than one child.
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 gratification or financial benefit 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 trafficking 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 are 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.
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

sufficient 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 fluctuating 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
specific report. This includes a child who died and the death was confirmed 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-identified or identified by a caregiver.
WORKER IDENTIFIER (WORKER ID): A unique identification 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.

State Characteristics
APPENDIX C
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
classified as state administered. Ten states are classified as state supervised, county admin-
istered; and two states are classified 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 defined as the proof required to make
a specific finding 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 file of child-specific 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 finding) 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-specific 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 2020, 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 2020 dataset is available to researchers from the
National Data Archive on Child Abuse and neglect (NDACAN).
Child Maltreatment 2020 A ppendix C: State Characteristics 137

Child Population Data
The child population data for years 2016–2020 are displayed by state in table C–2. The 2020
child population data for the demographics of age, sex, and race and ethnicity are displayed
by state in table C–3. The adult population is displayed in table C–4.

Table C–1 State Administrative Structure, Level of Evidence, and Data Files
Submitted, 2020
State
Supervised,
State County Probable Agency File and
State Hybrid Administered Administered Credible Preponderance Cause Reasonable 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 - - 1
Illinois - 1 - 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 7 37 1 7 52
Note: Level of evidence is listed in alphabetical order.

Table C–2 Child Population, 2016–2020
State 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Alabama 1,100,461 1,096,577 1,092,599 1,088,727 1,087,283
Alaska 187,143 185,729 183,189 180,442 178,731
Arizona 1,636,369 1,638,725 1,638,657 1,641,727 1,646,423
Arkansas 706,454 705,952 703,626 701,317 699,714
California 9,088,543 9,050,090 8,974,477 8,881,104 8,791,234
Colorado 1,264,104 1,264,219 1,264,226 1,256,673 1,250,035
Connecticut 752,301 743,729 736,061 727,280 718,952
Delaware 204,043 204,165 204,154 204,263 204,656
Florida 4,163,633 4,204,867 4,226,134 4,233,967 4,250,732
Georgia 2,511,033 2,513,811 2,509,456 2,505,399 2,499,950
Hawaii 307,595 305,360 303,049 299,419 295,818
Idaho 438,146 443,043 445,134 448,116 451,043
Illinois 2,931,409 2,897,055 2,857,349 2,817,312 2,777,968
Indiana 1,576,812 1,573,905 1,572,404 1,569,375 1,566,439
Iowa 731,225 731,975 729,802 728,005 725,559
Kansas 717,590 712,412 706,593 701,453 696,746
Kentucky 1,012,615 1,010,963 1,008,017 1,004,268 1,001,917
Louisiana 1,115,210 1,107,942 1,098,318 1,089,906 1,081,280
Maine 254,708 252,859 250,465 249,610 248,168
Maryland 1,346,649 1,345,241 1,341,430 1,338,232 1,333,919
Massachusetts 1,378,881 1,374,363 1,365,956 1,353,615 1,341,523
Michigan 2,194,924 2,181,394 2,163,590 2,144,307 2,126,813
Minnesota 1,292,860 1,300,061 1,303,090 1,303,212 1,301,219
Mississippi 721,603 714,850 707,663 699,984 693,133
Missouri 1,387,025 1,383,946 1,379,108 1,374,703 1,371,429
Montana 228,094 229,481 229,210 228,888 229,683
Nebraska 474,006 476,177 476,581 476,033 475,015
Nevada 675,888 682,282 688,989 694,730 697,580
New Hampshire 262,699 260,503 258,045 255,785 253,134
New Jersey 1,972,369 1,964,487 1,954,045 1,943,575 1,934,535
New Mexico 495,036 489,049 482,442 477,209 472,491
New York 4,151,570 4,114,612 4,074,414 4,031,894 3,988,354
North Carolina 2,295,962 2,302,931 2,304,529 2,304,554 2,306,400
North Dakota 175,687 176,649 178,524 180,584 181,629
Ohio 2,619,236 2,609,137 2,595,584 2,581,403 2,568,641
Oklahoma 962,956 959,142 955,996 953,923 953,520
Oregon 870,991 872,913 868,879 864,815 860,778
Pennsylvania 2,676,272 2,665,549 2,653,058 2,635,819 2,620,757
Puerto Rico 693,557 651,536 591,875 572,801 546,081
Rhode Island 209,181 206,942 206,059 203,923 201,849
South Carolina 1,098,914 1,104,965 1,108,588 1,113,673 1,117,925
South Dakota 213,789 216,108 216,722 217,817 218,479
Tennessee 1,504,184 1,507,817 1,510,375 1,510,976 1,513,401
Texas 7,320,809 7,365,787 7,382,686 7,406,777 7,435,132
Utah 921,281 928,062 930,162 929,940 929,276
Vermont 118,268 117,146 115,630 114,325 113,166
Virginia 1,871,874 1,872,961 1,870,042 1,868,689 1,866,420
Washington 1,634,890 1,651,656 1,657,823 1,661,024 1,665,794
West Virginia 374,445 369,641 365,119 360,439 356,267
Wisconsin 1,288,900 1,283,936 1,276,066 1,267,935 1,258,524
Wyoming 139,075 136,349 134,683 133,577 133,091
National 74,392,850 74,283,872 73,977,376 73,661,476 73,368,194
States Reporting 52 52 52 52 52
Note: Puerto Rico did not submit FFY 2016 NCANDS data in time for Child Maltreatment 2016; however, the state’s population data are presented in this table. Puerto
Rico’s population data were not included in any rate calculations in this report.

Table C–3 Child Population Demographics, 2020 (continues)
State <1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Alabama 56,246 57,335 59,016 59,095 60,228 60,443 59,889 58,873 59,897
Alaska 9,706 9,569 9,888 10,073 10,513 10,276 10,340 10,291 10,319
Arizona 81,409 82,994 83,974 87,128 89,250 91,874 92,011 91,532 91,271
Arkansas 36,035 36,415 37,461 37,599 38,782 38,964 38,495 38,071 38,904
California 446,864 448,867 456,877 475,511 482,261 492,689 490,685 491,909 491,004
Colorado 63,076 63,065 64,256 66,263 67,923 68,705 68,648 68,123 68,929
Connecticut 34,232 35,093 36,191 36,670 37,405 38,138 38,185 38,417 38,917
Delaware 10,497 10,660 10,884 11,050 11,370 11,209 11,264 11,130 11,558
District of Columbia 9,225 8,915 8,774 8,744 8,642 8,557 7,754 7,935 7,759
Florida 219,558 222,824 227,089 229,426 236,108 235,430 236,416 233,496 236,021
Georgia 124,993 126,259 129,471 131,903 134,918 136,974 136,097 135,611 138,755
Hawaii 16,244 16,428 16,833 16,940 17,595 17,231 17,609 17,799 17,402
Idaho 21,547 21,833 22,423 23,572 24,473 25,147 24,617 25,074 24,791
Illinois 140,052 141,151 145,841 147,981 152,494 153,713 151,009 150,882 152,360
Indiana 80,450 81,406 83,871 83,653 86,038 87,132 86,507 86,973 86,739
Iowa 36,974 37,429 38,742 39,237 40,200 40,629 40,484 40,202 39,760
Kansas 35,281 35,714 36,605 37,115 38,389 38,389 38,723 38,948 38,889
Kentucky 52,511 53,278 54,498 54,315 55,486 55,723 55,754 55,890 55,204
Louisiana 57,134 57,617 59,339 60,005 61,810 61,418 61,377 59,851 59,405
Maine 12,272 12,654 12,442 12,799 13,213 13,365 13,443 13,502 13,463
Maryland 69,583 70,793 72,161 72,387 73,955 74,494 73,615 73,484 74,391
Massachusetts 68,824 68,988 70,603 71,292 72,108 72,767 72,907 73,371 73,737
Michigan 107,849 109,274 111,852 113,894 116,270 116,952 117,428 116,360 116,819
Minnesota 66,390 67,399 68,724 70,933 72,545 72,967 73,296 72,647 72,374
Mississippi 35,419 35,906 36,634 36,545 37,159 37,356 37,307 37,051 37,935
Missouri 71,649 72,748 73,546 74,251 75,384 75,906 76,052 75,331 75,588
Montana 11,365 11,437 11,877 12,395 12,840 13,102 12,999 12,907 12,919
Nebraska 24,961 25,210 25,571 26,367 26,608 27,179 26,912 26,525 26,210
Nevada 35,704 36,263 36,349 37,695 38,645 39,239 38,497 39,062 38,415
New Hampshire 12,058 12,355 12,460 12,919 13,297 13,440 13,386 13,877 13,590
New Jersey 99,506 101,402 103,369 103,898 105,776 105,550 105,514 105,761 106,626
New Mexico 22,576 23,163 23,654 24,149 25,183 25,706 26,004 26,251 26,345
New York 220,972 219,860 222,502 221,495 223,496 224,628 220,923 222,218 221,893
North Carolina 118,309 119,400 121,529 122,290 125,293 125,924 126,325 125,633 126,789
North Dakota 10,459 10,335 10,468 10,879 10,938 10,909 10,616 10,375 10,212
Ohio 132,316 134,073 137,886 138,340 141,743 142,580 142,793 142,802 141,452
Oklahoma 48,675 49,468 50,324 51,454 53,595 53,489 53,871 54,160 53,610
Oregon 42,018 42,415 43,764 45,572 47,277 47,981 48,419 48,105 48,277
Pennsylvania 133,055 135,082 138,541 139,644 142,782 144,198 145,116 144,868 145,196
Puerto Rico 19,616 21,057 20,224 22,498 25,095 26,801 28,596 29,866 31,465
Rhode Island 10,402 10,406 10,989 10,728 11,237 11,118 10,970 10,867 11,068
South Carolina 56,371 57,252 58,198 58,925 60,550 61,887 61,265 61,339 62,014
South Dakota 11,810 11,801 12,226 12,288 12,339 12,441 12,410 12,280 12,142
Tennessee 79,891 80,465 82,091 81,423 83,528 83,988 83,029 83,008 83,467
Texas 377,019 381,914 390,612 401,856 417,506 422,311 420,213 414,752 411,117
Utah 47,431 47,291 47,145 49,102 50,764 51,358 51,481 52,275 50,842
Vermont 5,330 5,567 5,473 5,879 6,009 6,070 6,303 6,153 6,333
Virginia 97,752 98,819 101,420 101,096 104,378 103,992 103,116 102,928 103,798
Washington 86,481 87,022 88,821 92,475 95,164 95,083 94,292 94,433 93,653
West Virginia 17,447 17,849 18,301 18,641 18,914 19,655 19,989 20,250 20,055
Wisconsin 62,759 64,072 64,696 66,716 68,036 68,698 68,465 68,768 69,161
Wyoming 6,323 6,349 6,764 6,919 7,430 7,362 7,349 7,403 7,410
National 3,754,626 3,794,941 3,873,249 3,944,024 4,042,942 4,081,137 4,068,765 4,059,619 4,066,250

Table C–3 Child Population Demographics, 2020 (continues)
State 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Alabama 60,302 60,487 61,212 63,321 63,066 62,124 61,971 61,891 61,887
Alaska 10,417 10,022 9,937 9,888 9,792 9,391 9,611 9,337 9,361
Arizona 92,156 92,042 93,653 97,673 98,131 96,717 96,003 95,708 92,897
Arkansas 38,778 39,083 39,211 40,667 41,236 40,261 40,162 39,855 39,735
California 502,313 490,724 489,939 508,770 510,234 505,637 503,911 502,165 500,874
Colorado 70,446 71,300 71,091 72,601 73,406 73,027 73,073 73,346 72,757
Connecticut 40,074 40,170 40,803 42,372 43,151 43,836 44,619 45,156 45,523
Delaware 11,638 11,479 11,466 11,748 11,688 11,738 11,727 11,743 11,807
District of Columbia 7,358 6,673 6,235 6,092 5,924 5,483 5,232 5,136 5,150
Florida 237,681 235,723 236,043 245,572 247,552 246,634 244,424 243,476 237,259
Georgia 139,860 140,587 141,667 147,793 148,690 148,147 146,400 146,654 145,171
Hawaii 17,514 16,149 15,624 16,022 15,532 15,247 15,179 15,363 15,107
Idaho 25,426 25,898 26,008 26,943 27,239 26,684 26,825 26,633 25,910
Illinois 154,539 155,742 155,397 160,493 162,099 162,047 162,728 165,200 164,240
Indiana 86,757 87,426 87,444 90,251 90,660 90,167 89,884 90,822 90,259
Iowa 39,343 40,778 41,107 42,217 42,507 41,975 41,435 41,307 41,233
Kansas 39,360 39,869 39,431 40,324 40,358 40,024 39,609 39,775 39,943
Kentucky 55,133 55,040 55,813 57,122 57,875 56,971 57,114 57,130 57,060
Louisiana 59,667 59,524 60,158 62,148 62,381 60,610 60,116 59,449 59,271
Maine 13,460 14,036 13,973 14,480 14,680 14,791 14,998 15,234 15,363
Maryland 75,388 75,046 73,913 76,678 76,509 75,558 75,349 75,481 75,134
Massachusetts 75,071 74,127 73,990 76,393 77,152 77,719 78,910 81,104 82,460
Michigan 117,450 118,544 118,054 121,373 123,313 123,556 124,544 126,797 126,484
Minnesota 72,151 73,137 72,685 74,663 74,984 74,195 74,089 74,730 73,310
Mississippi 37,996 38,414 39,947 41,555 42,724 41,003 40,308 40,186 39,688
Missouri 76,259 76,153 76,488 79,061 79,184 79,115 78,380 78,450 77,884
Montana 12,904 12,909 13,029 13,461 13,469 13,170 12,938 13,141 12,821
Nebraska 26,238 26,506 26,701 27,015 26,756 26,662 26,735 26,503 26,356
Nevada 39,896 39,389 39,250 41,123 40,896 40,151 39,484 38,888 38,634
New Hampshire 14,298 14,151 14,303 14,712 15,185 15,332 15,634 15,937 16,200
New Jersey 108,873 107,836 107,257 110,643 111,505 111,619 112,180 113,691 113,529
New Mexico 27,042 27,205 27,492 28,157 28,260 27,841 27,910 27,613 27,940
New York 224,751 218,789 213,255 218,832 219,897 219,476 222,377 225,780 227,210
North Carolina 127,442 129,787 131,045 135,219 135,942 134,763 133,824 133,614 133,272
North Dakota 9,894 9,956 9,892 9,869 9,830 9,609 9,415 9,119 8,854
Ohio 141,114 142,080 142,951 146,324 148,209 148,178 147,452 149,312 149,036
Oklahoma 54,044 53,626 53,771 54,709 55,076 53,702 53,498 53,392 53,056
Oregon 49,089 49,361 49,046 50,749 50,614 49,879 49,204 49,652 49,356
Pennsylvania 146,089 146,279 146,324 150,514 151,153 151,075 152,121 154,133 154,587
Puerto Rico 31,749 34,002 34,580 34,830 36,180 37,209 37,753 37,127 37,433
Rhode Island 10,998 11,054 10,902 11,436 11,545 11,846 11,910 12,086 12,287
South Carolina 62,316 63,610 64,936 66,327 67,139 65,306 64,012 63,615 62,863
South Dakota 12,114 12,200 12,131 12,462 12,413 12,079 11,986 11,960 11,397
Tennessee 82,704 83,631 84,562 88,246 87,880 87,075 86,228 86,322 85,863
Texas 418,281 420,350 419,359 429,076 427,493 423,441 422,370 420,078 417,384
Utah 52,291 53,277 53,233 54,449 54,716 53,950 53,533 53,347 52,791
Vermont 6,318 6,352 6,336 6,614 6,809 6,777 6,747 6,982 7,114
Virginia 104,305 103,646 102,792 106,926 107,202 106,518 105,801 106,420 105,511
Washington 94,288 94,295 93,727 95,488 94,562 92,616 91,617 91,185 90,592
West Virginia 19,967 19,969 20,137 20,846 20,835 20,675 20,721 20,953 21,063
Wisconsin 69,412 71,927 71,468 73,549 74,360 74,101 73,817 74,548 73,971
Wyoming 7,463 7,815 7,806 8,011 8,108 7,860 7,805 7,475 7,439
National 4,110,417 4,108,175 4,107,574 4,235,807 4,256,101 4,223,567 4,213,673 4,225,001 4,202,326

Table C–3 Child Population Demographics, 2020
American
African- Indian or Pacific
State Boy Girl American Alaska Native Asian Hispanic Multiple Race Islander White
Alabama 553,916 533,367 314,403 4,237 16,286 89,255 38,674 650 623,778
Alaska 91,812 86,919 5,090 33,029 10,011 17,909 23,683 4,087 84,922
Arizona 839,825 806,598 83,837 77,071 50,329 737,671 69,297 2,967 625,251
Arkansas 358,293 341,421 124,271 4,927 12,180 89,607 28,317 4,360 436,052
California 4,493,170 4,298,064 439,276 31,885 1,108,444 4,532,687 465,880 31,898 2,181,164
Colorado 638,678 611,357 54,196 6,893 40,659 396,541 58,418 2,289 691,039
Connecticut 366,454 352,498 83,349 2,067 38,967 186,043 29,273 354 378,899
Delaware 103,878 100,778 52,127 485 8,686 34,843 12,026 79 96,410
District of Columbia 65,656 63,932 67,191 179 3,468 22,253 5,618 50 30,829
Florida 2,168,925 2,081,807 848,881 8,638 117,889 1,333,614 165,203 2,923 1,773,584
Georgia 1,271,585 1,228,365 842,565 4,521 106,876 373,872 100,330 2,357 1,069,429
Hawaii 152,252 143,566 5,099 388 64,893 57,763 93,250 35,030 39,395
Idaho 230,889 220,154 3,829 4,489 5,511 84,548 15,961 824 335,881
Illinois 1,418,082 1,359,886 425,280 3,876 154,351 684,219 101,409 794 1,408,039
Indiana 801,671 764,768 178,417 2,593 42,554 182,605 68,436 732 1,091,102
Iowa 371,069 354,490 40,488 2,471 20,225 78,169 30,196 1,638 552,372
Kansas 356,675 340,071 42,781 4,609 20,461 131,945 38,162 849 457,939
Kentucky 513,388 488,529 92,390 1,257 18,891 67,215 44,635 932 776,597
Louisiana 550,931 530,349 393,116 6,516 18,245 82,096 35,043 392 545,872
Maine 127,364 120,804 7,471 1,913 3,612 7,793 9,552 118 217,709
Maryland 680,122 653,797 408,142 2,743 86,227 221,312 73,258 591 541,646
Massachusetts 685,573 655,950 119,397 2,497 102,994 260,206 56,860 721 798,848
Michigan 1,088,228 1,038,585 340,920 11,926 73,880 185,576 107,675 627 1,406,209
Minnesota 664,502 636,717 135,799 17,987 83,709 119,089 68,912 1,046 874,677
Mississippi 352,913 340,220 288,165 3,954 6,963 35,455 18,475 225 339,896
Missouri 701,944 669,485 184,254 4,902 29,162 98,059 66,092 2,679 986,281
Montana 117,980 111,703 1,454 21,628 1,929 15,546 10,932 150 178,044
Nebraska 243,564 231,451 28,754 5,050 13,523 87,956 19,829 329 319,574
Nevada 356,305 341,275 74,286 5,204 41,284 286,710 50,537 5,458 234,101
New Hampshire 129,417 123,717 5,028 420 8,922 17,930 8,949 79 211,806
New Jersey 987,776 946,759 258,605 3,515 197,431 535,663 64,147 887 874,287
New Mexico 240,322 232,169 8,633 46,049 5,926 290,824 12,683 256 108,120
New York 2,039,085 1,949,269 588,530 12,606 345,542 988,845 153,733 2,097 1,897,001
North Carolina 1,175,707 1,130,693 517,090 26,108 82,720 394,916 105,556 1,888 1,178,122
North Dakota 92,860 88,769 7,907 13,797 3,012 12,863 7,995 161 135,894
Ohio 1,312,079 1,256,562 389,951 3,731 70,040 172,728 131,331 1,450 1,799,410
Oklahoma 487,463 466,057 72,660 95,063 20,908 174,207 96,470 2,467 491,745
Oregon 441,004 419,774 19,970 9,166 36,574 194,742 55,872 4,406 540,048
Pennsylvania 1,341,143 1,279,614 337,881 3,588 108,549 348,648 111,633 984 1,709,474
Puerto Rico 277,607 268,474 - - - - - - -
Rhode Island 103,211 98,638 14,791 1,022 7,655 55,228 9,921 158 113,074
South Carolina 568,722 549,203 326,191 3,362 20,658 113,265 47,712 736 606,001
South Dakota 111,941 106,538 6,781 27,077 3,521 16,694 10,318 167 153,921
Tennessee 772,175 741,226 285,280 3,063 29,939 157,097 62,251 953 974,818
Texas 3,789,709 3,645,423 901,621 17,805 353,011 3,654,682 206,695 6,750 2,294,568
Utah 476,747 452,529 11,271 7,910 17,198 168,646 34,552 10,872 678,827
Vermont 58,424 54,742 2,029 268 2,682 3,383 4,481 36 100,287
Virginia 954,011 912,409 370,784 3,890 128,133 272,044 113,104 1,272 977,193
Washington 851,829 813,965 71,872 21,015 139,904 368,696 144,062 14,071 906,174
West Virginia 182,791 173,476 12,831 472 2,652 10,105 15,423 90 314,694
Wisconsin 643,875 614,649 111,060 13,104 49,915 159,443 54,105 602 870,295
Wyoming 68,468 64,623 1,210 3,704 1,056 20,629 4,576 87 101,829
National 37,472,010 35,896,184 10,007,204 594,670 3,938,157 18,631,835 3,361,502 155,618 36,133,127

Table C–4 Adult Population by Age Group, 2020
State 18–24 25–34 35–44 45–54 55–64 65–75 75 and Older
Alabama 447,642 650,546 596,362 608,174 657,281 517,717 356,527
Alaska 67,090 116,308 98,141 83,476 91,536 64,158 31,718
Arizona 701,664 1,030,830 913,916 859,684 894,909 786,905 587,070
Arkansas 278,632 398,873 372,730 358,067 386,200 310,489 225,817
California 3,604,503 6,017,057 5,305,749 4,910,948 4,762,421 3,469,545 2,506,621
Colorado 527,479 924,010 816,118 704,945 708,745 543,363 333,024
Connecticut 337,820 448,627 431,882 460,934 512,795 363,764 282,232
Delaware 82,743 129,652 115,843 116,561 139,760 118,462 79,132
District of Columbia 71,823 164,724 112,997 74,052 69,799 51,557 38,276
Florida 1,741,633 2,818,471 2,649,160 2,692,803 2,942,419 2,539,576 2,098,518
Georgia 1,019,885 1,506,359 1,394,847 1,391,098 1,323,211 959,264 615,403
Hawaii 116,282 196,359 181,879 164,713 176,875 154,706 120,374
Idaho 167,745 241,578 234,230 205,499 220,824 185,942 120,052
Illinois 1,138,428 1,741,284 1,636,418 1,565,738 1,638,460 1,211,741 877,493
Indiana 656,048 897,324 835,433 813,342 871,082 658,882 456,403
Iowa 313,856 398,796 390,589 357,591 411,034 323,349 242,787
Kansas 291,742 381,528 365,011 323,727 366,735 282,458 205,858
Kentucky 412,057 591,103 550,941 554,414 595,984 462,362 308,473
Louisiana 416,408 649,003 597,727 537,203 599,947 458,282 305,468
Maine 105,896 164,443 156,841 170,543 210,474 175,368 118,408
Maryland 520,383 826,201 792,009 776,744 819,194 578,509 408,843
Massachusetts 683,872 996,637 859,166 870,591 943,383 693,841 504,561
Michigan 927,865 1,317,802 1,171,196 1,224,340 1,386,098 1,074,762 737,679
Minnesota 493,837 760,397 739,952 660,824 752,272 552,208 396,633
Mississippi 279,517 389,647 365,340 356,162 383,032 298,209 201,746
Missouri 558,006 824,107 762,624 719,740 825,928 630,388 459,326
Montana 97,989 140,617 133,684 117,092 148,120 129,574 83,818
Nebraska 188,631 254,707 246,298 213,797 239,667 185,015 134,422
Nevada 252,880 462,110 420,922 396,219 389,232 316,112 203,204
New Hampshire 122,283 175,498 159,402 177,656 215,173 158,927 104,202
New Jersey 744,834 1,154,546 1,141,377 1,174,392 1,222,659 859,409 650,619
New Mexico 196,150 285,029 259,877 232,949 269,912 231,746 158,165
New York 1,721,885 2,837,548 2,431,213 2,403,511 2,584,696 1,912,722 1,456,847
North Carolina 995,479 1,436,825 1,316,575 1,356,917 1,374,085 1,084,482 730,060
North Dakota 83,129 113,311 94,889 77,161 92,049 69,658 53,483
Ohio 1,047,534 1,561,808 1,410,659 1,419,979 1,586,958 1,233,236 864,402
Oklahoma 381,974 545,036 505,948 451,176 489,970 380,547 272,612
Oregon 360,193 608,219 578,539 512,027 532,224 478,552 310,975
Pennsylvania 1,122,290 1,707,051 1,534,009 1,561,391 1,790,069 1,401,258 1,046,429
Puerto Rico 294,224 408,313 378,462 407,372 428,074 369,181 327,636
Rhode Island 107,448 148,713 126,738 130,731 149,169 110,332 82,145
South Carolina 468,752 689,645 630,338 638,142 696,863 593,048 383,327
South Dakota 83,043 115,109 108,308 93,700 116,901 94,041 63,136
Tennessee 611,610 961,939 854,962 863,787 900,592 704,870 475,673
Texas 2,838,556 4,318,570 4,019,259 3,576,835 3,298,724 2,339,912 1,533,771
Utah 367,348 479,576 450,609 337,383 304,094 230,052 151,541
Vermont 64,544 75,290 72,258 75,804 93,691 77,613 50,981
Virginia 799,386 1,195,477 1,127,091 1,084,314 1,116,831 827,566 573,478
Washington 657,907 1,189,552 1,057,100 921,244 954,141 758,505 489,369
West Virginia 153,233 214,721 211,489 225,216 250,292 222,176 151,393
Wisconsin 544,485 740,977 722,021 698,860 819,853 620,424 427,511
Wyoming 52,578 76,106 75,526 63,937 77,314 63,814 39,962
National 30,321,221 46,477,959 42,514,654 40,773,505 42,831,751 32,918,579 23,437,603
Reporting States 52 52 52 52 52 52 52
Note: Puerto Rico did not submit FFY 2016 NCANDS data in time for Child Maltreatment 2016; however, the state’s population data are presented in this table. Puerto
Rico’s population data were not included in any rate calculations in this report.

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.
Alabama
Contact Holly Christian Phone 334–353–4898
Title Program Manager, Office of Data Analysis Email [email protected]
Address Alabama Department of Human Resources

50 Ripley Street
Montgomery, AL 36130–4000
General
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 mapping 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 2020, 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 2020 submission
does not include prevention assessment data in the Child File.
Reports
For FFY 2020, the number of screened in reports decreased over the prior reporting year and
the number of completed or disposed reports also decreased over the prior reporting year.
A policy change was implemented in FFY 2017 that decreased the timeframe permitted to
complete CA/N investigations from 90 days to 60 days.
Alabama determines staff needs based on a 6- or 12-month average of different case types.
Intake is one worker per county and more than one for larger counties, based on population.
CA/N reports are counted at a 1:8 ratio for sexual abuse, 1:10 for children who enter foster
Child Maltreatment 2020 A ppendix d: State Commentary 145

Alabama (continued)
care and 1:12 ratio for all other maltreatment types. Prevention assessments (AR) are counted
on a ratio of 1:12 and child protective services ongoing cases are staffed at a ratio of 1:18
cases. Response time, as reported in the Agency File, is taken from the calculated average
response time reported in the Child File. Data shows a decrease in average response time for
FFY 2020 from the previous year.
Children
During FFY 2019 additional fields were added to the SACWIS system and NCANDS data
extraction codes were modified to further improve accuracy and completeness of CARA-
related data. Fields to document referrals to appropriate 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 2019, the mapping for caregiver and
child risk factors was modified to improve NCANDS reporting accuracy and completeness.
The state reports all sex trafficking incidents through NCANDS including those with a
nonrelative perpetrator.
Fatalities
For FFY 2020 all state child fatalities are reported in the Child File. The child death review
process determined no additional data to report in the Agency File. The FFY 2020 number of
child fatalities was 47, an increase of 13 from FFY 2019. The majority of child fatality inves-
tigations which are indicated are suspended for due process or criminal prosecution. This
extends the length of the investigation, which can take several months or years to complete.
For the 47 fatalities reported in FFY 2020, the actual dates of death occurred in a seven-year
range, from FFY 2013–FFY 2020.
Perpetrators
Alabama state statutes do not allow a person under the age of 14 years to be identified as
a perpetrator. These reports are addressed in an alternate response. Ongoing services are
provided as needed to the child victim and the child identified as the person allegedly respon-
sible. During FFY 2019 NCANDS extraction code was modified to correctly blank perpetra-
tor age when the DOB is unknown.
Services
For foster care services, Alabama SACWIS does not require the documentation of the peti-
tion or identity of the court-appointed representative. Petitions are prepared and filed accord-
ing 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 SACWIS 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 referred to agencies providing early
intervention services under Part C of the IDEA is the number of referrals the agency provid-
ing services reported receiving during FFY 2020. Many services are provided through
contract providers and may not be documented through our SACWIS system. However,
enhancements were made to the system in FFY 2019 and again in FFY 2020 to better capture
services provided, including those that may not use the system to initiate payments. During
Alabama (continued)
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 specified by NCANDS.

Alaska
Contact Susan Cable Phone 907–465–2203
Title Research Analyst III, Office of Children’s Services Email [email protected]
Address Alaska Department of Health and Social Services

P.O. Box 110630
Juneau, AK 99811–0630
General
Alaska made several system changes to support accurate data in the NCANDS report prior to
FFY 2020:
■ Reviewed accuracy of data produced via a sex trafficking/exploitation indicator.
■ Isolated sex trafficking/exploitation data element to just sex trafficking and implemented a
data fix for inaccurate records.

■ Added reference data for changed city names or for zip codes missing from our database’s
address table.
■ Removed the user’s ability to document duplicate allegations of maltreatment.
■ Reduced the number of steps/tasks required to enter legal status and centralized the entry
of legal status updates.
Reports
During FFY 2020 Alaska focused on a concentrated effort to complete the growing number
of backlogged assessments (investigations) which successfully reduced the number of open
investigations to the lowest level Alaska has seen in years. This resulted in the over reporting
of assessments for 2020 in relation to when the reports were received and when the assess-
ment field work was completed.
During the COVID-19 pandemic Alaska saw lower numbers of reports, which we feel may
be related to school being virtual, causing children to have less contact with mandatory
reporters. Alaska made changes to screen out priority 3 (lowest priority) reports on March
23, 2020. However, priority 3 reports regarding high-risk infants, reports of maltreatment
in foster care, and reports of sex abuse or serious physical abuse cases were screened in.
Those cases screened out were tracked and with follow-up for the family to make referrals as
appropriate. The state added a new protective service report screen out reason Screen Out -
Emergency Management Decision to manage workload due to the COVID-19 virus.
Remote travel for investigations, which is frequently appropriate in Alaska, was affected
by COVID-19 pandemic-related travel risks and by travel restrictions established by some
villages. Changes were made to accommodate rural areas where travel into the community
had been shut down. Coordination was done with Tribal entities to find ways for OCS to
safely enter the communities, or to establish ways to assure child safety while travel restric-
tions were in place. Some of the modifications allowed for the Tribe or law enforcement to
video conference with OCS staff member during initial face to face contact with the alleged
victims or household members. Personal protective equipment was also mandatory for staff
and workers conducting investigations and assessments. Staff availability was impacted by
pandemic-related illness.
Children
For FFY 2018 NCANDS reporting methodology was amended to include reporting for sex
trafficking, and logic was improved for reporting of medical neglect. For FFY 2020 a system
Alaska (continued)
change was made to require users to specify which alleged victims were sex trafficked.
However, both methodologies rely upon data from the Maltreatment Assessment Protocol,
which is only used for screened-in Protective Service Reports. Alaska was unable to imple-
ment a reporting mechanism in the SACWIS system for Plans of Safe Care or Referral to
CARA-Related Services for FFY 2020.
Alaska has enhanced efforts related to the identification and documentation of children with
Alaska Native race, which may decrease children with unknown race while increasing counts
for identified races. Alaska believes that caregiver risk factors of alcohol and drug abuse have
been under-reported in the past. Toward the end of FFY 2016 Alaska instituted an improved
system for tracking family characteristics in investigations. For FFY 2017 data, syntax was
revised to harvest the benefits of these SACWIS upgrades. For FFY 2020, Alaska added fam-
ily characteristic ‘’financial stress” and multiple sub-selections, of unemployment, employed
poverty level, other financial stress. Financial stress is mapped to the NCANDS risk factor
category of financial problem.
Fatalities
In Alaska, the authority for child fatality determinations resides with the Medical Examiner’s
Office, not the child welfare agency. The Medical Examiner’s Office 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 Office concludes that the fatality was due
to maltreatment. For NCANDS reporting, fatality counts are obtained from a member of the
Child Fatality Review Team and reported in the Agency file.
Perpetrators
In Alaska, noncaregiver perpetrators of sex trafficking may be reported to NCANDS.
Services
Many services are provided through contracting providers and may not be well-documented
in Alaska’s SACWIS; therefore, analysis of the services array with the State’s NCANDS
Child File is not advised. Agency file data on the numbers of children by funding source is
reported for state fiscal year (July 1–June 30). The NCANDS funding source Other includes
state general funds and matching funds from contracting agencies.

Arizona
Contact Andy Egge Phone 602–255–2744
Title Information Technology Manager Email [email protected]

Reports and Statistics
Address Arizona Department of Child Safety

P.O. Box 6030, Site Code C010–14
Phoenix, AZ 85003–6030
General
For NCANDS reporting purposes, Arizona does not have a differential response program.
There have been no significant changes to policies or procedures during the current submis-
sion year.
Reports
There was a decrease in the number referrals when comparing 2019 with 2020. The Hotline
continued to answer calls as normal, with no changes to hours or staffing levels. There were
no reductions in force or other reductions due to the pandemic, other than staff on leave due to
quarantine or illness and/or who left employment with the agency voluntarily.
Children
During the pandemic, no policies were changed that related to conducting investigations and
assessments. Face-to-face investigations and assessments continued to occur. Arizona’s time
from the start of the investigation to the final determination (disposition) was not affected
by the pandemic, but staff were required to take precautions when responding to calls that
included ensuring PPE was available and worn. Arizona will be able to provide sex traffick-
ing data beginning in February 2021.
Fatalities
There were no policy changes with respect to child fatality reviews. Child Fatality review
meetings were switched to virtual, as were the internal multidisciplinary meetings.
Perpetrators
Arizona was not able to report sex trafficking for this submission, but will be able to
provide partial year data for the 2021 submission. Arizona currently cannot take reports on
noncaregivers.
Services
The standard for removing a child from their parent or legal guardian’s care did not change
during the pandemic. However, regular procedures on the use of PPE when engaging clients
was issued frequently throughout 2020. The following guidance was issued:
■ General Guidelines—All contracted services shall be conducted virtually if anyone
in the household involved with the service has reported symptoms of COVID-19, tested
positive for COVID-19, or pending a test for COVID-19. If a client is reporting symptoms
of COVID-19 they should be instructed to seek a COVID-19 test. If the test results are
negative, services should return to in-person. If a client tests positive or refuses testing,
services shall return to in-person after the CDC recommended isolation period (at least
10 days have passed since symptoms first appeared and at least 24 hours have passed
without the use of fever-reducing medications and improvement in symptoms). All other

Arizona (continued)
exceptions for virtual services must have written approval from DCS Program Manager &
Program Administrator.
■ Foster & Adoption Supports—All licensing activities & monitoring of home visits shall
be done in-person as outlined in the contract scope of work if child(ren) are placed in the
home. Monitoring visits may be conducted virtually if there are no children placed in the
home through March 2021. Support Groups may continue to be done virtually through
March 2021. Foster Parent College can be held virtually through March 2021. DCS will
continue to do routine in-person visits.
■ Parent Aide/Supervised Visitation (Parenting Time)—Should continue to be conducted
in-person following the DCS In-Person Visit Guidelines. Visitation may be moved to
virtual visits if a placement or caregiver has determined the need to quarantine per CDC
guidelines due to COVID-19 direct exposure and/or confirmed positive. In these cases,
document in case notes and notify the DCS Specialist. Parent Aide Skill Building ses-
sions may be conducted virtually after at least two in-person sessions in order to establish
rapport and engagement with the family. Intake meetings are required to be conducted
in-person. If parents are not fully engaged in skill sessions services should be provided in
person.
■ In-Home Preservation & Reunification—In-home visits shall continue to be done
in-person based on the frequency outlined in the contract statement of work. Allowable
service delivery modifications due to COVID-19 are below:
• For Moderate Preservation cases–1 in-person contact per week is required, remaining
contacts can be conducted virtually.

• For Intensive Preservation cases–1 in-person contact per week is required. Families
with an existing safety threat are required to have 2 in-person contacts per week,
remaining contacts can be conducted virtually.
• For Reunification cases–1 in-person contact per week is required. Families with an
existing safety threat are required to have 2 in-person contacts per week, remaining
contacts can be conducted virtually.
• If a family has tested positive for COVID-19 or symptomatic or is self-quarantined
pending results of a Covid test, we are not requiring provider staff to enter the home
in these cases. Providers are to go to the home and put eyes on child. We are asking
providers to see the children either through the window, at distance, or some creative
way to check on the family.
■ In-Home SENSE (Nurse Home Visits)—Home visits made by the SENSE trained nurses
shall be done in-person to conduct assessment of children(s) general health and devel-
opmental screenings. Administrative activities may be completed virtually or remotely
after the physical assessment has been completed. If a family member in the home has
tested positive for COVID-19, is symptomatic or is self-quarantined pending results of a
COVID-19 test, nurse home visits may be rescheduled until participants are symptom free
for at least 10 days since symptoms first appeared and at least 24 hours have passed since
resolution of fever (including fever, chills, rigors, and body/muscle aches) without the use
of fever-reducing medications and improvement in symptoms. Nurse home visits should
not be postponed longer than 3 weeks.

Arkansas
Contact Nellena Garrison Phone 501–320–6503
Title DCFS Information Systems Manager Email [email protected]

Office of Information Technology
Address Arkansas Department of Human Services

108 E. 7th Street, Donaghey Plaza North, 3rd Floor
Little Rock, AR 72201
General
The Governor of Arkansas issued Executive Order 20-03 on March 11, 2020, to declare a
public health emergency and ordered the Department of Health to take action to prevent
the spread of COVID-19. This order put in place the necessary protocols in the event the
virus became widespread and further actions needed to be implemented. The Arkansas
Department of Human Services implemented Triage Recommendations on March 17,
2020, for safely conducting investigations and assessments during the Phase I COVID-19
mandates. If all services could not be provided on an individual caseload, recommendations
provided guidance on how to prioritize cases based on safety. The Governor of Arkansas did
not issue Executive Orders for a statewide lockdown during FFY 2020.
Reports
The following options are available when accepting a referral:
■ Refer to DCFS for Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (R/A-FASD): 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 will use the regular request for DCFS assessment for FASD. These will
automatically be assigned to the DCFS Central Office FASD Project Unit to complete the
assessment and closure. There were two R/A-FASD reports received in FFY 2020. The
R/A-FASD Assessment was updated and integrated with a new R/A-SE Assessment type
during FFY 2020.
■ Refer to DCFS for Newborn Infant Substance Exposure (R/A-SE) (effective July
2019): Act 598 requires healthcare providers involved in delivery or care of infants report-
ing an infant born and affected by Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD) (the current
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.
Newborn Infant Substance Exposure Assessments do not have allegations of maltreat-
ment at the time of the Referral. There were seven R/A-SE reports received in FFY 2020.
Referrals regarding substance exposed infants would be screened out for the following
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 confirm the mother’s prescription for the drug causing
the positive screening.

■ Refer to CACD for Death Assessment (R/A-DA) (effective FFY 2015): Act 1211, the
Department of Human Services and Arkansas State Police Crimes Against Children

Arkansas (continued)
Division (CACD) will conduct an investigation or death assessment upon receiving initial
notification of suspected child maltreatment or notification of a child death. 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
• 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 identifies 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 identifies 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 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 first year the state submitted differential response data to NCANDS.
The total number of Education Personnel Reporters decreased in FFY 2020 from the FFY
2019 total. The decrease may be attributed to the closure of schools and transition to remote
learning due to COVID-19 restrictions during FFY 2020. The number of ‘2-Neglect or
Deprivation of Necessities’ allegations increased during FFY 2020. The increase may be
attributed to the increased poverty of families due to job loss, lack of childcare, and other
financial constraints due to the impact of COVID-19. The number of ‘3-Medical Neglect’
allegations decreased for FFY.

The Child Abuse Hotline continued operation with no changes to the hours of operation
or staffing levels. There were no screening changes due to the pandemic. The state did not
experience a significant staff reduction due to the pandemic.
Children
The state implemented Triage Recommendations on March 17, 2020 for safely conducting
investigations and assessments during the Phase 1 COVID-19 mandates. The recommenda-
tions included answering COVID-19 screening questions prior to conducting home visits
with families to assess whether the face-to-face interviews would continue based on the
responses to those questions.
The state continued to conduct face-to-face investigations and assessments when safety was
validated. If face-to-face contact was not possible, investigation interviews and assessments
were conducted virtually through Face Time or other applications or conducted via tele-
phone. The state did not experience a notable change in the investigation disposition time due
to the pandemic. The state did not implement any changes regarding the referral of infants
with prenatal substance exposure during the pandemic.
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 officers, 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.
The state implemented changes to the Fatality Review meeting process due to the pandemic.
The External Fatality Reviews were changed from in-person to video meetings. Internal
Fatality Reviews conducted via telephone were changed to video meetings. There were no
disruptions to the Child Death Review Committee operations during the pandemic.
Perpetrators
Arkansas accepts reports of sex trafficking by adult noncaregiver offenders 18 years of age or
older. This data is reported to NCANDS in the Child File. The NCANDS category of Other
perpetrator relationship includes the state codes of brother (foster), client, live-in, no relation,
peer, significant other, sister (foster), and student.

Services
In-home services continued to be provided during the pandemic. When appropriate,
service provision was conducted electronically rather than in-person. The child
removal process was not impacted due to the pandemic. Arkansas was approved for
Prevention Plan with additional IV-E funding provided. Additional funding was provided
through the Relief Bill promoting Safe and Stable Families. The state outsources some
contracted services such as parenting training and substance abuse treatment.

California
Contact Ertug Misirli Phone 916–651–0229
Title Section Chief, Data Analytics Bureau Email [email protected]
Address California Department of Social Services

744 P Street, MS 9–13–654
Sacramento, CA 95814
General
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 definitions 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
definitions 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
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.
On March 19, 2020, California’s Governor issued a stay-at-home order to protect the health and
well-being of all Californians and to establish consistency across the state in order to slow the
spread of COVID-19. California determined that child welfare hotline and emergency response
investigations are essential government functions and should be prioritized to protect the safety
and well-being of children and families. County child welfare emergency response workers
were established as first responders when assessing for the safety and well-being of children
reported as being abused or neglected. Counties were informed that in-person investigations of
the abuse or neglect of children must continue to occur.
Reports
As a result of stay-at-home orders and school closures, due to COVID-19, the number of
calls to the child welfare hotline has significantly decreased, resulting in a lower than usual
number of referrals reported for NCANDS in Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2020. There were
almost 25,000 fewer unique reports received in FFY 2020 compared to 2019. Although there
were less referrals from all report sources, California saw the largest drop from education
personnel. In FFY 2020, there were about 13,000 fewer unique reports from education
personnel overall.
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 specified by the report
response type. Reports are classified 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
California (continued)
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 2020,
the immediate response compliance rate was 97.0 percent and the 10-day response compli-
ance rate was 91.5 percent. COVID-19 did not have an impact on response compliance rates.
Children
CARA-related fields plan of safe care and referral to appropriate services reflect an ongoing
process to improve the accuracy of data collection. A system change was completed in July
2020 to record a plan of safe care and referrals to appropriate services in our system, and we
continue working with counties to improve reporting and reviewing our own analysis to ensure
accuracy of data about CARA referrals. We plan to have a complete year of data to report
for FFY 2021. Beginning June 2015, the CDSS implemented a policy to track commercially
sexually exploited (CSE) youth referrals with an allegation of “exploitation.” Following a policy
California implemented in May 2016, CSE allegations are entered in one of two ways: first,
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 notifications (SOC 826 forms) submitted
to the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) from County Child Welfare Services
(CWS) agencies when it has been determined that a child has died as the result of abuse and
neglect. The abuse and neglect determinations reported by CWS agencies can be and are made
by local coroner/medical examiner offices, 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 does reflect 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.
Calendar Year (CY) 2019 is the most recent validated annual data and is therefore reported for
FFY 2020. 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 reflected
in this report is a point in time number for CY 2019 as of December 2020 and may change if
additional fatalities that occurred in CY 2019 are later determined to be the result of abuse and/
or neglect. Any changes to this number will be reflected in NCANDS trends analyses, through
resubmissions, as well as subsequent year’s APSR reports.
CDSS will continue to look at how it might use other information sources to enrich the data
gathered from the SOC 826 reporting process and reported to NCANDS As part of the techni-
cal assistance provided to counties regarding SB 39, the CDSS has also recently begun col-
lecting information regarding county child welfare agencies’ roles on local child death review
teams and how their participation may lead to further identification and reporting of deaths that
are a result of abuse or neglect. Additionally, the CDSS is partnering with the CDPH and the
California Department of Justice to reestablish lapsed data sharing agreements, for purposes
of the reconciliation audit of child death cases in California. We are hopeful that once the
reconciliation audit data are for a more current period, the CDSS will be able to compare that
data, which includes state vital statistics data, with our SOC 826 fatality statistics to compare
actual numbers reported to help inform our NCANDS submission.
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
flexibility to address child abuse prevention efforts through a local lens. This approach,
however, results in 58 sets of challenges in program implementation, evaluation, 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 Prevention,
Intervention and Treatment (CAPIT). The Office 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 2019–2020 is representative of FFY 2020.
OCAP’s stakeholders, who have been most impacted by the pandemic, include grantees,
contractors, counties, and other community-based prevention organizations which have
traditionally focused on in-person service delivery. While many prevention providers have
been able to adapt and pivot to provide virtual services when in-person service delivery was
not possible, some have struggled with the transition. To further impact service delivery,
child abuse hotline reports have significantly decreased due to distance learning and tele-
health, reducing the opportunity to identify suspected child abuse and neglect by mandated
reporters. The OCAP has received reports that most community-based organizations are
experiencing increased demand for concrete supports including diapers, formula, clean-
ing products, and other necessities. Governor Newsom provided $3M to Family Resource
Centers (FRCs) to meet these concrete needs and support FRCs to remain operational. Also,
caregiver and youth warmline supports provided by Parents Anonymous and 2-1-1 were
funded with state dollars, as we recognized the increased stressors experienced by families.
While the pandemic has resulted in challenges to meet needs and reduce stressors, it has also
contributed to increased collaboration as we work together to address the multi-faceted issues
of service delivery and outreach.
OCAP uses the Efforts to Outcomes (ETO) software as the primary data collection and
reporting tool. This is the third year the OCAP has directed counties in ETO to choose one
unit of measure (children, parents/caregivers, or families) for service counts instead of mul-
tiple units of measure (children and parent/caregivers) for one service activity. This change
was made to mitigate the number of duplicate counts for numbers served and move towards
more uniform data collection across all 58 counties. This reporting change has improved
the way counties capture the number of primary recipient(s) for the OCAP funded programs
and services. However, some counties continue to report service counts on a different unit of
measure each fiscal year for the same service activity. For example, in a previous fiscal year,
a county may report that 100 families received parent education services and in the follow-
ing year the unit of measure reported has changed, and the county reports that 200 parents/
caregivers received parent education services. Since the unit of measure for service counts do
not align in these reporting circumstances, it is challenging to determine if there has been an
overall change in the number served for that service activity.
There are a variety of possible reasons for this discrepancy and the changes to the unit of
measure for service counts. Possible reasons are new vendor contracts, the transition from
in-person services to a virtual platform due to the pandemic, and improved tracking method-
ologies for the primary recipient(s) served. The OCAP has been working diligently to ensure
counties are tracking service counts for the correct recipient(s) and this information is being
updated in ETO. The pandemic has created unforeseen and unique challenges for counties,
which has had a direct impact on service delivery. Several counties reported increased par-
ticipation rates in services since transportation is no longer a barrier, however other counties
reported families do not have access to the needed technology to participate in services via a
virtual environment.
For SFY 2019–2020, counties reported 15,313 CAPIT parents/caregivers served, 318,097
CBCAP parents/caregivers served and 20,300 PSSF parents/caregivers served. In this
reporting period, 13 counties reported a decrease in the total number of children served with
CAPIT and PSSF funding, and seven counties reported an increase in the total number of
children served with CBCAP funding. There was a decrease in the total number of children
served by CAPIT and PSSF due to several factors including:
■ Counties corrected inaccuracies in reporting from the prior fiscal year
■ Alternative programs offered causing less participation in services
■ Unforeseen COVID-19 challenges

Colorado
Contact Detre Godinez Phone 303–866–4322
Title Federal Data and Reporting Analyst Email [email protected]

Division of Child Welfare
Address Colorado Department of Human Services

1575 Sherman Street
Denver, CO 80203
General
There were no substantial legislative changes that impacted the way that Colorado reported
CAPTA information. Counties using Differential Response have 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 utiliz-
ing Differential Response only use High Risk Assessments. Safety and risk assessments are
completed for all screened-in referrals. Both of these tracks are reported to NCANDS.
Reports
Reports in FFY 2020 decreased starting in March 2020 due to the impact of COVID-19.
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 with children
decreased during COVID-19 due to fears around child, family, and caseworker safety.
Colorado has a hotline system (1-844-CO-4-KIDS) that remained operational during the pan-
demic and resulting lockdown. Calls were still routed to either the appropriate county agency
or to the central hotline call center. Call takers were able to work from home, and service was
not interrupted. As of March 12, 2020, Hotline workers at the central hotline call center have
been asking questions of reporters about COVID-19 exposure through information-gathering
processes for both child welfare and adult protection referrals.
While Colorado and Colorado counties did not experience staff reduction due to layoffs,
there were many difficulties in hiring new staff during the pandemic. This was reported by
multiple county agencies and continues to be an issue.
Children
Colorado county agencies did conduct face-to-face investigations and assessments as it was
required to accurately determine safety and risk of children. Virtual visitations were not
approved for initial contacts during the assessment, but were approved for ongoing monthly
contacts with children and subsequent visits. County workers were directed to minimize
possible risks or exposure to Covid by taking additional precautions including wearing a mask
and asking families to do so as well, maintaining public health recommendations for protocols
including washing hands, self-monitoring health, and minimizing social interactions.
Rule and statute was not changed around the span of time between the state of the investigation
and the disposition/closure.
Colorado’s child welfare system does not allow for assessment of prenatal exposure and only
for assessment at the time of birth. The pandemic did not change any policies or procedures
around reporting substance-exposed newborns. Colorado implemented the substance-exposed
newborn questions at the end of the FFY 2019 reporting period, and has started reported on

Colorado (continued)
infants being born substance-exposed, families receiving appropriate services and plans of safe
care, and the specific substances identified in the report.
Fatalities
Colorado did not change any policies around child fatality reviews during FFY 2020.
Colorado’s Child Fatality Review Team (CFRT) were still able to virtually meet and perform
reviews during the COVID-19 pandemic and the lockdown. Child victims who died as a
result of maltreatment are entered in Trails and are collected within the Child File. Statute
requires that county departments provide notification to the CDHS of any suspicious incident
of egregious abuse or neglect, near fatality, or fatality of a child due to abuse or neglect within
24 hours of becoming aware of the incident. County departments have worked diligently to
comply with this requirement.
Fatalities are reported from the Child Fatality Review Team (CFRT). The CFRT is housed in
Colorado Department of Human Services’ Administrative Review Division (ARD). Together,
ARD and county human services agencies work closely to ensure these egregious incidents
of abuse or neglect, near fatalities, or fatalities are documented correctly and timely into the
SACWIS.
Perpetrators
Colorado does not make findings on third party perpetrators of sex trafficking; instead the
caretakers are evaluated to see if their behaviors are providing access to the third party
perpetrators.
The NCANDS category of “other” perpetrator relationships includes the state categories of no
relation, significant other, foster son, foster daughter, teacher, school counselor, spouse (ex),
restitution recipient, child under guardianship, significant other (ex), neighbor, self, and host
home provider.
Services
Counties in Colorado reported that in-home services were impacted by the change of services
being performed virtually versus in-person. This resulted in changes in how counties would
pay for in-home services; for example, home-based services dropped in FFY 2020 from FFY
2019. Colorado does not outsource any direct child welfare protection services. Some services
that help to support families may be community-based.
Child removals continue to occur in Colorado during the pandemic when indicated by the
safety assessment. The number of children entering out-of-home care decreased from FFY 2019
to FFY 2020, including transfer from in-home to out-of-home and direct out-of-home entry.
Preventative services were impacted at the beginning of the pandemic by the expansion of
benefits, daycare, and the Colorado Child Care Assistance Program. Federal initiatives that
were implemented that were helpful with service provision during the pandemic included the
ability to have young people come back to care, the drawdown of Federal funding for kinship
navigation programs in the prevention plans, and additional monies to the Court Improvement
Program.

Colorado (continued)
DCW released an information memorandum (IM-CW-2020-0044) informing and providing
guidance to counties on local spending of new and temporary federal funding made available
to the state through the CARES Act. Colorado was awarded $714,583 and the entirety of the
award was distributed for the front-line work in the counties. As these funds may be incurred
by counties up until and no later than September 30, 2021, additional information will be
provided in the 2023 APSR.

Connecticut
Contact Fred North Phone 860–817–7462
Title Program Supervisor Email [email protected]

Strategic Planning, Performance Management and
Evaluation
Address Department of Children & Families

505 Hudson Street
Hartford, CT 06106
General
The Department of Children and Families (DCF) continues to operate a Differential
Response System. The Differential Response System is comprised of two tracks: Child
Protective Services Investigations for moderate- to high-risk cases, and Family Assessment
Responses (FAR) for low- to moderate-risk cases. Currently, Connecticut (CT) does not
report data concerning reports handled through a FAR response to NCANDS.
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 45 days.
Inconsistencies with that expectation were documented accordingly. According to our data
over the course of FFY 2020, investigation (97.2 percent) and FAR (99.1 percent) responses
have continued to meet the outcome measure expectation (>=90 percent). Rates for comple-
tion also improved from 89 percent during FFY 2019, to 91.4 percent in FFY 2020, that also
continued to meet our outcome standard (>=85 percent). This is likely a result of reduced
caseloads for our DRS workers due to the significantly lower call volume, while response
staffing levels remained constant throughout the year.
Reports
During the reporting period DCF refilled 75 child protective service positions: 11 Social
Work Supervisors, 40 Social Workers, and 24 Social Worker Trainees. DCF also established
one new Social Work Supervisor (Durational) position. DCF’s Academy for Workforce
Development certified 80 new child protective services hires as completing their pre-service
training during the FFY 2020 (some began training prior to the year, so are not reflected
in the hiring figures above). The CT DCF Careline has maintained continuous operations
24/7/365 throughout the course of the year. Significant reductions in call volume allowed for
reduction in screeners by 50 percent starting in April 2020, increasing back to 75 percent
by September 2020. Staffing has returned to 100 percent as of December 2020. During FFY
2020, Careline also prepared to implement a modern cloud-based call center system (Five9)
that allows for screeners to work remotely and will help ensure their health and safety, while
maintaining continuous operations, as pandemic conditions continue. Five9 has now been
fully implemented. Careline screening staff are comprised of 49 full-time staff, and 13 part-
time staff (at either 34 or 20 hours per week).
There was a significant drop in total call volume since the COVID-19 response began in
March 2020. This includes a major decline in the number and proportion of calls made by
mandated reporters, especially school personnel. There was no change in the screening
criteria. However, additional quality assurance measures were put in place to enhance our
practice. Careline Social Work Supervisors were charged with reviewing and approving all
referrals, prior to COVID-19 they were just reviewing not accepted referrals. The Careline
also instituted a randomized daily review of non-accepted referrals generated from school
personnel as they moved to a virtual environment. Careline Program Supervisors reviewed
Connecticut (continued)
5 of these referrals daily (15 total) to provide further scrutiny to these referrals, as we were
seeing a significant decrease in the quantity and quality of information provided in these
referrals.
In addition to the decline in the volume of reports, the types of mandated reporters that pro-
vided them changed in significant ways as well. The single largest group of reporters (man-
dated or otherwise) has historically been school staff. During months in which most schools
are in session, this group accounts for approximately 40 percent of all reports received. This
proportion began to drop precipitously in March 2020, dropping to about 16 percent in April
and May, remaining lower than usual over the summer months, and increasing to only 27
percent in September.
The rate of accepting reports for a differential response has been declining over the past
couple years as call volume increased, and improved quality assurance efforts at the Careline
have yielded positive results. This continued during FFY 2020, with monthly acceptance
rates mostly only a few percentage points below the previous year. Acceptance rates dipped
further between April and June but returned to more typical rates by July.
Children
During FFY 2020, there was a decrease in the number of unique children who were alleged
victims, compared to FFY 2019. This correlates with the significant decrease in the number of
reports accepted for investigation observed during this year as a result of the COVID-19 pan-
demic. CT continued to conduct differential responses throughout the course of the pandemic
response, including both in-person and virtual visitation when indicated. Beginning in April
2020, all incoming accepted reports were triaged by an Intake Program Supervisor and Office
Director to determine, based on case circumstances, whether in-person or virtual visits would
be utilized for the response. The goal was to safely limit the number of in-person responses
made by DCF staff to protect the health of both staff and families and help minimize the spread
of COVID-19. Virtual visits were utilized in over 60 percent of responses between April and
July, peaking in May at 74 percent. This method was revised in September to require Intake
Program Supervisor and Social Work Supervisor review. This was done to continue timely
triage of all reports as call volume increased towards more normal rates.
Social workers were provided with, and required to wear, personal protective equipment (PPE)
including surgical masks and face shields, during in-person visits while also making sure to
employ social distancing during these visits to maintain the health and safety of our workforce
and the children and families we serve. Policies and procedures concerning the conduct of all
differential responses did not otherwise change during the course of the pandemic.
DCF received 3,759 notifications through its CAPTA portal during FFY 2020, of which 48
percent resulted in an actual abuse/neglect report. Further, 68 percent indicated that a Plan of
Safe Care had been developed for the child, and 69 percent referred to appropriate services, as
of the time of the notification. These fields have not been incorporated into our legacy SACWIS
system, as they are planned to be developed in our upcoming CCWIS system within the next
two years.

DCF continues to strengthen its response to child victims of human trafficking. During the last
quarter of FFY 2020 the Department updated its human trafficking policy to ensure all possible
cases of child trafficking called into the Careline receive a coordinated response ensuring the
child and family receive necessary supports and services. During FFY 2020, the Department
worked with 115 new referrals of children at high risk of, suspected, or confirmed victims of
child trafficking. Consistent with prior year’s most child victims are living at home at the time
of their victimization. Each of the six DCF Regions has a Human Antitrafficking Response
Team (HART) team consisting of a HART Lead and Liaison(s) that partner with law enforce-
ment, service providers and the identified Multidisciplinary Team(s) (MDT). These partner-
ships ensure a collaborative response and coordinated services for child victims and their
families. Cases that do not meet the statutory definition of abuse and neglect are coordinated by
the Department’s HART director in partnership with the relevant MDT(s). During FFY 2020,
74 cases were reviewed by the appropriate MDT(s).
Fatalities
DCF has appointed representatives that are members of, and regularly attend, the CT Statewide
Child Fatality Review Panel meetings. Other members include representatives from the Office
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 specific 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
Office 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 defines abuse and neglect as having been committed by a parent/guardian or
entrusted caretaker. Most situations concerning sex trafficking involves perpetrators that
do not fit this definition, and so such reports had often not been accepted for a differential
response. Systemic barriers to collecting and reporting sex trafficking data, included CT’s
inability to accept reports of suspected child trafficking when the perpetrator is identified as
a noncaregiver. This was due to limitations of CT statute and regulation, as well as techni-
cal data collection infrastructure. The finalization of new policy in September 2020 has
resolved this challenge so that future data collection should be more robust and inclusive.
Non-accepted reports are handled through our nationally recognized HART system, which
includes partnerships with community provider Love146 and local, state, and federal law
enforcement entities.
The NCANDS category of Other perpetrator relationship includes the state codes of 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, school/educational setting staff (i.e. janitors), and
occasional coding errors (“other” used when another actual code should have been used).
Services
With very few exceptions, DCF modified our service system at the onset of COVID-19 to
prohibit nonemergency, in-home or in-person services. Our entire service array transitioned
very quickly to telehealth solutions and maintained a virtual presence in home and with
clients through COVID-19. We did reopen to in-person services for a time, but continue to
use telehealth contact to greater/lesser degrees depending on the status of COVID-19 rates in
the state and/or local areas. We did not suspend any contracted service; all were operational
throughout COVID-19, although they operated on a modified operational plan (virtual,
telehealth, telephonic service provision only). We did not close our any of our services to new
referrals, so as needs arose, referrals continued to be made to each of our programs. At the
onset of the pandemic, the agency also stood up a COVID-19 tab on the agency website to
identify resources available to families across CT and partnered with the provider commu-
nity to establish a Warmline to contact with questions. The top resource searches on the web
site were related to: food insecurity, child care availability and housing resources.
This year DCF, in partnership with Beacon Health Options, established the Integrated Family
Care and Support (IFCS) program. This program will empower and strengthen families, as
well as remove the stigma of DCF involvement for families that previously had to receive our
direct services to access needed services that would address their needs. The development
of the program was a result of a review of data showing a high rate of unsubstantiated case
transfers to ongoing protective services provided directly by DCF. The program was devel-
oped in the belief that families would be better served in their own community without DCF
involvement and aligns well with the Families First Prevention Services legislation and our
Prevention mandate.
Child placements have been significantly impacted by COVID-19 throughout the course of
the year. Entries into care decreased for much of the year, but so have exits from care, result-
ing in actually very little change to the overall number of children in placement at any given
point in time. CT courts were only hearing Priority 1 business for a time (i.e. for Motions for
Orders of Temporary Custody) and slowly reopened to hear nonemergent and more routine
matters. Additionally, the Commissioner was granted emergency authorization to extend a
moratorium of exiting older youth from care, while the eligibility criteria for young adults to
re-enter care was relaxed to encourage young adults to return to care if they were experienc-
ing housing instability. We had a higher number of children in “trial home visit” placement
as a result of the agency moving forward with reunification while waiting for the court for
legal discharge from care.

Delaware
Contact Christine Weaver Phone 302–892–6489
Title Data and Quality Assurance Manager Email [email protected]

Division of Family Services
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 historical numbers of reports
of child abuse, neglect and dependency. In FFY 2020, Delaware received a decrease in
reports. Delaware continues to use Structured Decision Making® (SDM) at the report line,
in investigations, 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 to expand our FAIR
programming. Initially, we had a contract to serve teens where there are identified risks of
neglect, such as parent/child conflict. We have been able to expand that contract to serve all
families for allegations of neglect and other risk factors, including domestic violence and
prenatal substance exposure. For the current NCANDS reporting period, Delaware did not
provide FAIR data in the Child File because the program had not been fully implemented
across the state. In the near future, we hope to be able to include our internal FAIR data. We
are also building a provider portal to allow our contracted FAIR services to enter information
into our data system so this data could be included in future NCANDS reports.
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. As we continue to
improve FOCUS, we have tasked ourselves with improving data quality including informa-
tion used for NCANDS. NCANDS validations are used as a data quality tool to determine
areas of need and improvement. We are in the process of building in several validations to
ensure updated demographics and child risk factors are completed on all investigation case
participants. We added specific elements to capture postresponse service details and now
added a validation to ensure completion. Delaware has established a Continuous Quality
Improvement Data Quality Committee to focus on data quality improvement efforts.
Reports
In FFY 2020, Delaware received 21,138 hotline reports, 20,599 family and 539 institutional
abuse (IA) reports. Of the reports received, 13,809 (13, 395 family and 414 IA) or 65 percent
did not meet criteria for an investigation or assessment and were screened out. This is a
3 percent increase in comparison to the number of screened-out reports from FFY 2019.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, Delaware hotline remained at full capacity and we did not
alter our screening practice or policy. During the pandemic, Delaware has seen a reduction of
calls to our hotline. One of the biggest contributors to this reduction was the lack of contact
that school-aged youth were having with school staff and health care professionals. School
staff and health professionals are top report sources to the hotline.

Delaware (continued)
Delaware has overall completed less investigations in FFY 2020 than FFY 2019. This
decrease in investigation completion numbers is contributed to the decrease in reports due to
COVID-19 pandemic, increase in screened out reports, and increase in referrals to contracted
FAIR. Because of the increase of cases diverted through differential response, there is also
an increase in unsubstantiated cases. Previously some of these cases may have received a
lower-level substantiation. This also attributes to the decrease in cases with closed no finding.
The state’s intake unit uses the Structured Decision Making® (SDM) tool to collect sufficient
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 first contact; Priority 1-within 24 hours, Priority 2-within 3 days,
and Priority 3- within 10 days. In FFY 2020, accepted referrals for family abuse cases were
identified as 60 percent routine/Priority 3, 17 percent Priority 2, and 23 percent urgent/
Priority1 in response. The calculation of our average response time for FFY 2020 was a
decrease of approximately 28 percent from FFY 2019. 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. The agency found that Priority 1 and Priority 2 reports
are made in a timely manner. The Priority 3 reports are the area where improvement is
needed. We are piloting units that only respond to Priority 3 reports. In light of the continued
high number of referrals coming in, Delaware has continued to increase the number of staff
responsible for hotline and investigation functions by adding an additional 57 positions to
support these areas over the past few years.
Children
The state uses 50 statutory types of child abuse, neglect, and dependency to substantiate an
investigation. The state code defines the following terms:
■ Abuse is any physical injury to a child by those responsible for the care, custody and
control of the child, through unjustified force as defined in the Delaware Code Title 11
§468, including emotional abuse, torture, sexual abuse, exploitation, and maltreatment or
mistreatment.
■ Neglect is defined 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, surgical, or any other care necessary for the child’s safety and
general well-being.
■ Dependent Child is defined 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.
During the pandemic, DFS has made face-to-face as well as virtual contacts with families.
Once the investigation is initiated, a review is conducted to determine if a virtual contact
was sufficient to ensure the safety of the children on the initial response. Virtual contacts,
if appropriate, are permitted throughout the investigation; however, at least one face-to-face
contact with the family and home visit has to be conducted before investigation closure.

In FFY 2020, about 10 percent of the children in the Child File were substantiated victims
of child maltreatment. In FFY 2019, 10 percent of the children in the Child File were
substantiated victims of child maltreatment. In looking at specific number of victims, there
was a slight decrease. Delaware is now able to capture more specific information related
to caregiver and child risk factors. Due to a system issue, staff were not always competing
child risk factors for all children on a case. It was only mandatory for victims. A validation is
currently being developed to ensure risk factors are completed for all children on the investi-
gation case. After this is implemented in our system, Delaware will have more accurate data.
Delaware implemented sex trafficking as allegation type in January 2020. Reports regarding
noncaregiver perpetrators of sex trafficking are accepted and included in NCANDS report.
Fatalities
House Bill 181 requires the agency to investigate all child deaths of children age 3 and
under that are sudden, unexplained, or unexpected. Delaware also has a 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. These reviews continued during the pan-
demic. The State does not report any child fatalities in the Agency File that are not reported
in the Child File. For FFY 2020, there were two fatalities due to co-sleeping and three due to
neglect.
Perpetrators
Delaware maintains a confidential Child Protection Registry for individuals who have been
substantiated for incidents of abuse and neglect since August 1, 1994. The primary purpose
of the registry is to protect children and to ensure the safety of children in childcare, health
care, and public educational facilities.
For FFY 2020, parent as a perpetrator ranks the highest in the perpetrator relationship to
child representing approximately 70 percent of our records. This is a decrease from FFY
2019. The second highest category for perpetrator relationship is other relative nonfoster
parent, followed by Other. Other would include individuals such as a babysitter or nonrelated
household member.
Services
During FFY 2019, Delaware’s Children’s Department saw a decrease in the number of
children and families served in Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program. This was
contributed to a decrease in the number of referrals made by Department staff. There was a
significant decline for those children and families served in the Other funding source. This
decline was attributed to COVID-19 pandemic in that certain aspects of services were no
longer available, decline in referrals, increase in FAIR, and decrease in cases going to ongo-
ing treatment services.
One of our programs is Team Decision Making, which engages the family, informal supports
and formal supports in planning for children who are at risk of coming into care. This pro-
cess 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 contin-
ues it partnerships with community organizations to provide community-based preservation
and reunification services including family interventionists. 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 build on our service array for prevention services in the
upcoming years.
Delaware has added additional fields to capture information on services provided. These
service fields were newly built into our data system as of February 2018. They were intended
to be mandatory fields, however there was a defect allowing workers to complete the event
without adding any services. This validation was added during this reporting period. There is
also a data entry and completion delay that is being addressed by operations.

District of Columbia
Contact Lori Peterson Phone 202–434–0055
Title IT Program Manager (Data Management) Email [email protected]

Child Information System Administration
Address District of Columbia Child and Family Services Agency

200 I St, SE
Washington, DC 20003
Reports
As result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the District tracks all COVID-19 related reports
through its Information and Referral process.
Children
The District’s Child and Family Services Agency (CFSA) does not accept calls on alleged
victims of sex trafficking aged above 21 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 Office 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 defines “Suspicious Child Death as a report of child death is
either unexplained, or concern exists that abuse or neglect by caregiver contributed to or caused
the child’s death.”

Florida
Contact James Weaver Phone 850–717–4686
Title Director of Protective and Supportive Services Email [email protected]

Office of Child Welfare
Address Florida Department of Children and Families

1317 Winewood Boulevard
Tallahassee, FL 32399–0700
General
Florida did not change any policies related to conducting investigations and assessments
due to the pandemic. Investigators were still required to make in-person investigations and
assessments.
Reports
There were no changes to hotline hours due to the pandemic, the abuse hotline remained a
24/7 hotline that was always manned. However, Florida went to remote learning in schools
and shut down restaurants and other indoor-activity businesses. As a result of this action,
the calls to the hotline dropped dramatically resulting in a reduction in intakes, a reduction
in investigations, victims, and perpetrators While the numbers in those areas have begun to
normalize over the past few months, that reduction in the spring impacted our yearly totals.
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 trafficking by either a caregiver or noncaregiver.
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 flee 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.
Children
Florida’s NCANDS extract has not been updated to report infants with prenatal substance
exposure, however based on our internal review, only 1 child in the file met the criteria of
being less than 1 year, being reported by medical personnel, and being positive for either
drugs or alcohol risk factors. A total of 440 children who met the criteria were screened out,

Florida (continued)
but either prior to that screen out, or subsequent to it, 432 of those screen-outs were part
of another intake that was screened in. So only 8 were screened out and not previously or
subsequently screened in.
The Child File includes both children alleged to be victims and other children in the house-
hold. The Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS) identifica-
tion number field 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. Florida added
the option for a virtual visit to be used in lieu of an in-person face-to-face visit for children
already in care who are required to be seen each month.
Although the Florida Hotline uses the maltreatment type “threatened harm” only for nar-
rowly defined situations, investigators may add this maltreatment to any investigation
when they are unable to document existing harm specific 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 significant. Threatened harm is defined
as behavior which is not accidental and which is likely to result in harm to the child, which
leads a prudent 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). The
NCANDS category of Other maltreatment type includes the state category of threatened
harm, intimate partner violence threatens child, household threatens child, and family
violence threatens child. 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.
Fatalities
Florida did not change any policies related to child fatality reviews. The Child Death Review
team continued to conduct operations during the pandemic, although some file reviews were
done via virtual meetings. Fatality counts include any report closed during the year, even
those victims whose dates of death may have been in a prior year. Only verified abuse or
neglect deaths are counted. The finding was verified when a preponderance of the credible
evidence resulted in a determination that death was the result of abuse or neglect. All sus-
pected child maltreatment fatalities must be reported for investigation and are included in the
Child File.
Perpetrators
By Florida statute, perpetrators are only identified as responsible for maltreatment in cases
with verified findings. Licensed foster parents and nonfinalized 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 reviews all children verified 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
Florida (continued)
placements on the report received date, then the perpetrator relationship is mapped to the
NCANDS category of “other.”
Services
Removals went down during lockdown, as did calls to the hotline and investigations. But if
a child was brought into care, the services they received were unchanged. We did utilize the
federally-approved option of virtual visits for caseworker visits for those children already in
care.
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 specific services to specific funding sources (such as prevention).

Georgia
Contact Michael Fost Phone 404–463–0845
Title Operations Analyst Email [email protected]

Division of Family and Children Services
Address Georgia Department of Human Services

2 Peachtree Street
Atlanta, GA 30303
General
Screened-in referrals in Georgia are directed to either an investigation or alternative
response. Alternative response is called Family Support. 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 end with a
determination of either substantiated or unsubstantiated, indicating whether a preponderance
of evidence supports the allegation(s) or not. Family Support cases receive no such determi-
nation. A decision to remove children into state custody does not depend on the investigation
disposition, but on safety in the home. Both investigations and Family Support are included
in the NCANDS Child File. Note that in March 2020, the in-person requirement for ISA
meetings was relaxed to include virtual/video visits.
Reports
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. In 2020, due to the Covid19 pandemic, reports of child abuse and neglect declined
significantly.
Children
For safety, many in-home and face-to-face visits between case workers and families were
made by video call instead.
Fatalities
Georgia receives information from partners in the medical field, law enforcement, Office
of the Child Advocate, other agencies, and the general public to identify and evaluate child
fatalities.
Perpetrators
Prior to July 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 perpetrator
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

Georgia (continued)
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.

Hawaii
Contact Kisha Raby Phone 808–586–5711
Title Program Development Administrator Email [email protected]

Child Welfare Services Branch
Address Hawaii Department of Human Services

Princess Victoria Kamamalu Building
1010 Richards Street, Suite 216
Honolulu, HI 96813
General
During the pandemic, Hawaii encouraged staff to work remotely and only make face-to-face
contact with families when it was determined to be relatively safe. Screening questions
regarding potential Covid-symptoms, exposure, and recent travel were asked prior to face-
to-face contact. Many monthly contacts between child welfare caseworkers and children and
parents were completed virtually. Using federal CARES Act funds, the State provided cell
phones or tablets to caregivers, as needed, to ensure virtual contact with both child welfare
staff and their family members, as well as to help with engagement in virtual services. Initial
investigations/assessments were largely still completed live, taking reasonable precautions.
For example, if there were alleged safety issues about a family, triggering an investigation,
but the issues did not concern the state of the family home, the child welfare assessment
worker met with the family outside.
Reports to Child Welfare Services (CWS) of potential abuse or neglect are handled in one of
three ways through our Differential Response System:
■ Reports assessed as low risk and with no identified safety issues are referred to Family
Strengthening Services (FSS).

■ Reports assessed as moderate risk with no identified safety issues are referred to
Voluntary Case Management (VCM).

■ Reports assessed as severe/high risk and/or with identified safety issues are assigned to a
CWS unit for investigation.
There are no identified alleged victims of maltreatment in reports assigned to Family

Strengthening Services (FSS) and Voluntary Case Management (VCM). While VCM cases
are documented in the Child Welfare database they are non-protective services cases. All
intakes that are referred to FSS, VCM, or CWS are documented in the CWS database.
FSS cases are not documented in the state CWS database. During FSS and VCM service
provision and assessments, if maltreatment or a safety concern is indicated, the case will be
returned to CWS for investigation.
Reports
Hawaii’s Child Abuse and Neglect Hotline remained fully staffed and functional throughout the
pandemic. Because schools were closed and then reopened primarily with virtual education,
calls to the hotline dropped in April and May 2020, but began to rise again in June 2020 and
call volume was largely back to pre-pandemic levels in August and September 2020. Overall,
Hawaii has not seen a significant decrease in reports to the hotline during the pandemic.
Policies and procedures regarding screening hotline calls for response did not change during the
pandemic. The only policy and procedural changes that may have directly affected NCANDS
data are discussed in the GENERAL section above. There were a few staffing challenges
during the pandemic. Due to viral exposure, some staff needed to quarantine (and therefore not

Hawaii (continued)
work at all for periods of time), and inter-island travel was severely restricted. Fortunately, there
were no significant reductions in workforce during this period.
Children
The NCANDS category of “other” maltreatment type category includes the state categories
of “threatened abuse” and “threatened neglect”. Threatened Harm does not meet the level of
evidence for psychological abuse or physical abuse. This is the definition from Hawaii Revised
Statutes §587A-4: “Threatened Harm means any reasonably foreseeable substantial risk of harm
to a child.”
Hawaii currently uses two disposition categories: confirmed and unconfirmed. A child is catego-
rized as substantiated in NCANDS if one or more of the alleged maltreatment types is confirmed
with more than 50 percent certainty, or as unsubstantiated if all of the alleged maltreatment types
are not confirmed with more than 50 percent certainty.
Fatalities
Hawaii reports all child fatalities as a result of maltreatment in the State Child Welfare Services
database. The State Medical Examiner’s office, local law enforcement, and Child Welfare
Services’ Multidisciplinary Team conduct reviews on potential child abuse and/or neglect
cases that result in death. The occurrence and content of these reviews was not impacted by the
pandemic.
Perpetrators
The State CWS data system designates up to two perpetrators per child. The perpetrator
maltreatment fields are currently blank. The information was in narrative form, not coded
for data collection. Hawaii does not report noncaregiver perpetrators of sex trafficking to
NCANDS currently.
Services
During the pandemic, many services that are normally provided face-to-face were provided vir-
tually. For some services, like psychological evaluations, there was a pause in service provision,
while the State and the contracted provider worked to design and implement virtual versions of
their services. Most in-home services, which were largely provided virtually at the beginning
of the pandemic, later shifted to an in-person version with social distancing, masking, and hand
washing precautions in place, as well as pre-screening questions prior to face-to-face contact
to ensure safety. As mentioned above, federal CARES Act funds were used to provide families
with cell phones and tablets, as needed, to facilitate virtual service provision.
The State is not able to report some children and families receiving preventive services under
the Child Abuse and Neglect State Grant, the Social Services Block Grant, and “other” funding
sources because funds are mixed. Funds are allocated into a single budget classification and
multiple sources of state and federal funding are combined to pay for most services. All active
cases receive services.

Idaho
Contact Derek Bernier Phone 208–334–5700
Title Research Analyst, Supervisor Email [email protected]

Family and Community Services
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. During the COVID-19
Idaho had no changes related to information collection or our process regarding our reports
however Idaho did see a significant decline for several months in the number of reports of
maltreatment as a result of the pandemic. Our centralized unit continued to operate through-
out the pandemic and had no change in hours and was able to continue to ensure appropriate
staffing levels.
Reports
Idaho has a centralized intake unit which includes a 24-hour telephone line for child welfare
referrals. The intake unit maintains specially trained staff to answer, document, and pri-
oritize calls, and documentation systems that enable a quick 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 Safety (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 specific 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 specific 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 custody issues exist, but don’t allege abuse or neglect or don’t meet agency defini-
tions of abuse or neglect.

Idaho (continued)
■ 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.
The investigation start date is defined 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 notified about the alleged abuse. Idaho only reports substanti-
ated, unsubstantiated: insufficient evidence, and unsubstantiated: erroneous report disposi-
tions. Most regions are not large enough to dedicate staff separately into screening, intake,
and assessment workers.
Children
During COVID-19 Idaho had no changes related to policies or procedures in conducting
investigations. Idaho continued to conduct face-to-face investigations and throughout the
pandemic. While staffing levels were a challenge at times, Idaho was able to continue to
ensure appropriate staffing levels to conduct investigations. Idaho’s current practice standard
for Comprehensive Safety, Ongoing, and Re-Assessment requires the social worker to inter-
view all children of concern, all child participants on a report, and any child who falls under
the Temporary Child Resident Standard. The practice standard defines child(ren) participants
on a presenting issue as, “all other children who are not identified as victim(s) of abuse or
abandonment which reside in or visit the home.”
At this time, the Comprehensive Child Welfare Information System (CCWIS) cannot provide
living arrangement information to the degree of detail requested. The state’s CCWIS counts
children by region rather than by county. There are seven regions in Idaho.
For caregiver risk factors, Idaho’s safety assessment model was implemented in early federal
fiscal year (FFY) 2015 and does not list domestic violence or financial issues as separate risk
issues. These risk issues are captured under broader risk issue of dangerous living environ-
ment/child fearful of home situation/caregiver with uncontrolled or violent behavior and the
risk issue of unused or unavailable resources.
Idaho collected data on sex trafficking victims on all children assessed for neglect, abuse, or
abandonment. In addition, Idaho assesses children in foster care during for human trafficking
during child contact visits and when a youth returns from runaway status. The NCANDS
category of “other” maltreatment types includes the state categories of abandonment, ado-
lescent conflict, exploitation, alcohol addiction, drug addiction, and finding of aggravated
circumstances.
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 trafficking or referral of infants with prenatal
substance exposure during the pandemic.

Idaho (continued)
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
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 confirms all fatalities reported by child welfare via the state’s CCWIS 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 define the age of a suspect of 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
definition of sexual abuse as defined in Idaho Statute. Idaho Statute includes in the definition
of sexual abuse of a child under the age of sixteen 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.
Services
During the pandemic Idaho did see an impact to availability or modality of service delivery,
some services were available through telehealth while others were temporarily suspended.
Idaho was able to utilize funding incentives to help support ongoing availability of services
and/or access to services to meet the needs of children and families during the pandemic.
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.

Illinois
Contact Cynthia Richter-Jackson Phone 217–558–5678
Title Deputy Director, Quality Enhancement Email [email protected]
Address Illinois Department of Children and Family Services

4 West Old State Capital Plaza
Springfield, IL 62701
General
Currently Illinois does not have a Differential Response pathway.
Reports
The Illinois NCANDS Child File contains reports of child abuse/neglect that resulted from a
hotline call meeting the standards of abuse/neglect as defined in department procedure. 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
definitions 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
official 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 number of reports for FFY 2020 show a decrease of 9 percent when compared to FFY
2019. The biggest factor for this decrease can be attributed to the lockdown caused by the
COVID-19 pandemic. The three months with the largest decrease in reports (comparing the
same months in 2019 and 2020) were the three months at the beginning of the lockdown
(March, April, and May).
The Child Abuse/Neglect Hotline never shutdown during the pandemic even as staff transi-
tioned 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 questions were
added consistent with CDC and IDPH (Illinois Department of Public Health) guidance for
worker safety in responding to reports of abuse/neglect. The pandemic likely contributed to a
reduction in Illinois child protection staff during FFY 2020. Illinois does not outsource child
protection services.
Illinois does not report on time to investigation in hours. The definition for reporting on CPS
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 allegations(s). Illinois policies require at least a good-faith attempt
to contact the alleged child victim and the actual contact and the attempted contact are
counted as successful initiation of the investigation.
Illinois (continued)
Children
During the pandemic, child protection staff responding to initiate investigations were pro-
vided with PPE and instructions for safe use of PPE. They were also instructed to ask screen-
ing questions consistent with CDC and IDPH guidance. Child protection staff continued to
make in person contacts to conduct investigations unless the COVID-19 screening questions
suggested a risk of exposure. In those situations, guidance to workers included instructions
to maintain 6 feet of social distance, meet outdoors if able to maintain reasonable privacy and
social distancing, ask parent to use video call to walk the worker through the home to assess
the condition of the home, and if unable to maintain 6 feet of social distance due to exigent
circumstances, to correctly use available protective equipment and follow CDC/OSHA
guidelines.
Illinois has an allegation of human trafficking which is defined as:

■ Sex trafficking 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.
■ 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 trafficked
(NEGLECT).
For the purpose of a child abuse/neglect investigation, force, fraud, or coercion need not be
present.
Because Illinois’s definition of sex trafficking is a part of a broader definition of human

trafficking that also includes labor exploitation and blatant disregard of a caregiver’s respon-
sibilities, it is mapped to the NCANDS maltreatment type of Other.
Fatalities
No policy changes related to child fatality reviews were implemented due to the pandemic.
During the initial stages of the lockdown, team meetings were rescheduled and then con-
ducted using video conferencing.
Perpetrators
The Illinois Abused and Neglected Child Reporting Act and Rule 300, Reports of Child
Abuse and Neglect, does not set a minimum age for a perpetrator, 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 NCANDS category of Other relationship includes the state categories of church
staff, nonstaff person, or other.

Indiana
Contact Kara Riley Phone 765–431–0851
Title Data Analyst–Federal Reporting Project Manager Email [email protected]
Address Indiana Department of Child Services

Office of Data Management
302 W. Washington Street, Room E306-MS47
Indianapolis, IN 46204–2739
General
Indiana has engaged in continuous improvement efforts to refine the data collection and map-
ping process through system modifications and overall enhancements, including a new intake
system that launched in February 2016. MaGIK is an ever-evolving, umbrella system which
has further incorporated services, billing, case management, and the overall data manage-
ment, organization, 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 definition of child abuse and
neglect; and/or contain sufficient information to either identify or locate the child and/or fam-
ily and initiate an assessment (Indiana Policy Manual 3.6). As of January 2018, the Hotline
ceased automatically recommending assessment of all reports with alleged victims under the
age of three years old. As of July 2019, a change in legislation increased the 1-hour response
time to 2-hours. The following four types of referrals do not receive an assessment:
■ Screen out: These referrals meet one or both conditions listed above. No further action
is taken within or outside of the department due to insufficient information by the report
source or the information given to the hotline does not meet requirements for diversion to
voluntary services or information and referral.
■ Refer to Licensing: These referrals meet the first condition above and meet requirements
for a response from the departments licensing unit. (E.g., reporter has concerns about a
foster home that do not meet statutory definition of child abuse and neglect, but complaint
does cause licensing concern/s such as too many children living in a foster home).
■ Service Request: These referrals meet the first condition above and meet action require-
ments for the family to be contacted for voluntary services coordinated or provided by the
department. These referrals would include service requests through the DCS Children’s
Mental Health Initiative and the Collaborative Care Program.
■ Information and Referral: Referral meets the first condition listed above and the report
source is given information by hotline staff and verbally referred to outside agencies as
appropriate. (E.g. Reporter is concerned about developmental issues with their child.
The hotline would give the report source information about and contact information for
Indiana’s early intervention program).
Indiana has also instituted daily Safety Staffings between field workers and supervisors,
which emphasizes ensuring the safety of children as quickly as possible.
Children
As of January 1, 2018, the Hotline ceased automatically recommending assessment of all
reports with alleged victims under the age of three years old. For reports involving children
under 3 on reports recommended for screen out, the local offices may still choose to change
the recommendation to assess. If a report is recommended for assessment and includes an

Indiana (continued)
alleged victim under the age of 3, the local office may only screen out with approval from
their chain of command up to the Deputy Director of Field Operations. As a result of this
change, the number of reports declined while the number of allegations leading to a sub-
stantiation increased. Indiana continues to work with its field staff responsible for entering
reports and completing assessments and emphasizing the importance of entering all appli-
cable data, including child risk factors.
Fatalities
Fatality counts for the FFY are based on the date of an approved, substantiated, fatality
assessment. All data regarding child fatalities are submitted exclusively in the Child File. The
state has confirmed 56 distinct children found in fatality assessments that were approved in
FFY 2020. This count is a decrease from the previous year due to staffing increases in FFY
2019 to complete and approve assessments in FFY 2019. DCS completes a review of all child
fatalities that fit the following circumstances: children under the age of 1: the child’s death is
sudden, unexpected or unexplained, or there are allegations of abuse or neglect; children age
1 or older: the child’s death involves allegations of abuse or neglect. Reports for fatalities can
made from multiple sources, including DCS, law enforcement, fire investigator, emergency
medical personnel, coroners, the health department, or hospitals. Reports can be made from
these sources related to drownings, poisonings/overdoses, asphyxiation, 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.
Indiana increased expenditures for Community Partners in FFY 2020 compared to FFY
2019. Overall, Indiana expended similar federal funds this year and slightly less state funds.
Title IVB—Promoting Safe and Stable Families decreased, which caused Indiana to serve
fewer children. On June 1, 2020, Indiana Family Preservation Service was launched. This
service is required to be referred on all new in-home CHINS and IA’s after this date. This
service is a per diem that encompasses all services that the family needs to remain safely in
the home with their caregivers.

Iowa
Contact Lynda Miller Phone 515–242–5103
Title Management Analyst 3 Email [email protected]

Field Operations Quality Assurance and Improvement
Address Iowa Department of Human Services

1305 E. Walnut Street
Des Moines, IA 50319
General
Iowa has two types of responses to screened-in referrals. Our traditional pathway is called a
child abuse assessment and the alternative response is called a family assessment. Data from
both pathways are reported to NCANDS.
Reports
The number of abuse and neglect reports decreased slightly in FFY 2020. A factor in this
decrease is contributed to the global pandemic. Once schools closed in March 2020, Iowa
saw a decline in the total number of suspected abuse reported, much like we see in normal
summer months when school is out. Iowa data supports this decline was a result of fewer
reports being made by school personnel.
During this pandemic, Iowa’s child abuse hotline continued to operate with the same hours of
operation and staffing levels. The only change was that hotline staff were set up to work from
home. Policies and procedures related to screening remained unchanged.
Children
Iowa made many changes to procedures related to conducting assessments due to the
pandemic. Iowa continued to conduct face-to-face assessments with precautions taken to
protect the health of both the family and the worker. Screening questions were implemented,
personal protective equipment was utilized, and strict protocols were followed to make
decisions on a case-by-case basis. Iowa’s time to conduct an assessment was not changed by
the pandemic. The same timeframes to address safety for children and complete the written
assessment remained the same.
Barriers to collecting and reporting data to NCANDS for infants with prenatal substance
exposure include a common understanding and application to what constitutes an “infant
affected.” No policies or procedures changed regarding the referral of infants with prenatal
substance exposure during the pandemic. The NCANDS category of “other” maltreatment
types was corrected to calculate dangerous substance as neglect or deprivation of neces-
sitates. Iowa continues to see a significant amount of substance abuse impact. The state’s sex
trafficking maltreatment type was edited to comply with the new federal category with the
same name.
Fatalities
Nine child fatalities were the result of abuse or abuse as a contributing factor in FFY 2020.
A state review of the maltreatment cases indicated unsafe sleep (namely cosleeping in an
adult bed), which involved parental drug abuse, were the main contributors, making up just
over half (five) of all child maltreatment deaths. Physical abuse by unregistered childcare
providers caused two maltreatment deaths and inadequate medical care and neglectful motor

Iowa (continued)
vehicle accident accounted for the remaining two deaths. Iowa is in the midst of reviewing
policies and procedures regarding safe sleep as well as allegations of medical neglect.
Perpetrators
Perpetrators in Iowa include individuals 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 trafficking. This definition, in accor-
dance with federal regulation, defines any perpetrator of child sex trafficking as a perpetrator
of child abuse and this data is reflected in NCANDS reporting.
Services
Iowa has both preventive and postresponse services. Preventive services (Non-Agency
Voluntary Services) are available on a voluntary basis to families following an assessment
where abuse is not substantiated or abuse is confirmed (substantiated, not placed on the
central abuse registry), but there is low or moderate risk. These services 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 (Family Centered Services) are required for families where abuse is
founded (substantiated, placed on the central abuse registry) and confirmed with high risk.
These services are managed by the Iowa’s child welfare agency and offer a flexible 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.

Kansas
Contact Jill Loebel Phone 785–368–8172
Title Prevention and Protection Services Email [email protected]
Address Kansas Department for Children and Families

555 S. Kansas Avenue
Topeka, KS 66603
General
In July 2016, Kansas’s level of evidence changed from clear and convincing to preponder-
ance. In addition to our finding category of substantiated, as of July 2016, another finding
category of affirmed was added. Affirmed is defined as a reasonable person weighing the
facts and circumstances would conclude it is more than likely than not (preponderance of the
evidence) the alleged perpetrator’s actions or inactions meet the abuse/neglect definition per
Kansas Statutes Annotated (K.S.A.) and Kansas Administrative Regulations (K.A.R.).
Reports
Reasons for screening out allegations of child abuse and neglect include:
■ Initial assessment of reported information does not meet the statutory definition: 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 does not 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 conflict 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; 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.
Kansas experienced a decrease in the number of reports received, likely a result of

COVID-19 and children not being in the school setting. Educational professionals make up
approximately 35 percent of the child abuse and neglect reports to the KPRC. While the rate
in which KPRC screens cases in has remained stable, the decrease in reports has led to a
decrease in the number of reports screened in, thus fewer victims.
The NCANDS category of “other” report source includes the state categories of self, private
agencies, religious leaders, guardian, Job Corp, landlord, Indian tribe or court, other person,
out-of-state agency, citizen review board member, collateral witness, public official, volun-
teer, etc.
Fatalities
Kansas uses data from the Family and Child Tracking System (FACTS) to report fatalities to
NCANDS. Maltreatment findings 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 office would be used to determine if the child’s fatality was caused

Kansas (continued)
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 as a result 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 specific to
an individual child’s death. Kansas is using all information sources currently made available
when child fatalities are reviewed by the state child death review board.
Perpetrators
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 requires the child to have a court-appointed attorney (GAL).

Kentucky
Contact Angela B. Cornett Phone 502–564–7635 x3020
Title Quality Assurance Branch Manager Email [email protected]

Division of Protection and Permanency
Address Kentucky Department for Community Based Services

275 East Main Street, 3E–A
Frankfort, KY 40621
General
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, there were multiple executive orders issued by the Governor
of Kentucky. Additionally, Kentucky implemented multiple temporary practice modifica-
tions, as described in detail in the sections below.
Kentucky does not have a true alternative or differential response. The assessment worker
makes the investigation response (IR) and the alternative response (AR) determination at
the completion of the assessment. In other words, IR/AR is now a finding, rather than an
assessment path. Kentucky’s name for the IR is investigation and for AR is family in need of
services. Kentucky’s business practice does allow multiple maltreatment levels to be present
in a single report. For example, one report could have a disposition/finding of unsubstanti-
ated and services needed if it was determined that maltreatment did not occur, but the family
needed services from the agency
In FFY 2016, Kentucky removed the dispositional finding of services not needed from the
standards of practice (SOP) and from SACWIS/CCWIS. Mapping was reviewed and updated
as appropriate. Kentucky currently has the following dispositional findings for investigations/
assessments: fatality/near fatality substantiated, found/substantiated, substantiated, unsub-
stantiated, and services needed. For the purposes of NCANDS reporting, services needed
is mapped to the NCANDS disposition of “other.” Kentucky no longer maps a dispositional
finding to alternative response.
Reports
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent executive orders issued by the Governor,
Kentucky’s referrals of alleged maltreatment decreased in the early months of the pandemic.
While most staff began telecommuting, intake staffing levels and hours of operation
remained the same. Kentucky’s statewide hotline continued to operate throughout the
lockdown and the pandemic. Staff’s access to laptops allowed for telecommuting without
any interruptions to normal intake service hours. Some staffing issues were experienced in
the rural parts of Kentucky due to staff without reliable internet connections, however, these
issues were quickly resolved, and everyone was successfully back online within a short time.
As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, slight changes were made to intake procedures.
Intake staff began implementing a COVID-19 screener during the intake to facilitate the
decision-making and precautionary measures of investigative staff and their supervisors.
The COVID-19 screener required additional information to be obtained about each referral,
including the family’s access to virtual platforms, internet service, and phone numbers.
Temporary procedural changes were implemented; however, no formal changes were made
to Kentucky’s policy. Historically, intake teams working in offices received a high number of
faxed or written referrals (e.g., documents from the courts). Due to intake staff telecommut-
ing, community partners were encouraged to utilize the statewide hotline or online referral

Kentucky (continued)
portal. Kentucky’s intake staffing rates have improved during the pandemic with regard to
retention. This can be attributed to the flexibility and preference of staff for telecommuting.
This has led to an increase in work/life balance and reduction of leave time usage. Kentucky
has continued to hire additional staff due to normal turnover.
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-
fied 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 identified 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
responsibility of determining response times during normal business hours was transferred
from field staff supervisors to centralized intake supervisors.
Incident date is not a required field in Kentucky’s SACWIS/CCWIS. However, Kentucky

has implemented a new field in the assessment related to incident date in an attempt to better
track incidents of maltreatment in foster care. During the assessment, for children in out-of-
home care (OOHC), staff can now indicate whether the alleged maltreatment occurred prior
to the child’s entry into OOHC, or if the incident occurred after the child entered OOHC.
This will improve Kentucky’s monitoring of true incidents of maltreatment in foster care,
even without an exact incident date.
Children
As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the state temporarily modified procedures to ensure
the safety of families and staff as outlined below:
■ Effective 3/18/2020 - 5/27/2020: To minimize person-to-person interaction and spread of
COVID-19, staff were asked to temporarily suspend normal face-to-face contacts and
home visits, unless there was concern regarding an immediate safety threat. However,
frequent contact with families and children via telephone, Skype, or similar platforms was
required to ensure all necessary supports and services continued to be provided.
■ Effective 5/27/2020- 11/23/2020: CPS investigative staff were directed to initiate all
investigations assigned a four-hour timeframe and a 24-hour timeframe following normal

procedures. Reports that fell into this category were directed to be initiated through
unannounced, face-to-face contact. If there were no immediate safety threats identified
that would necessitate a child’s removal from the home, follow-up interactions were
completed through FaceTime, Duo, or Skype, if available. If the family did not have access
to these resources, phone contact was utilized for any follow-up contacts. Initiation of an
investigation necessitating a 48-hour, or 72-hour timeframe was conducted through other
means rather than face-to-face contact. However, if safety threats were identified during
the investigation, face-to-face contact was permitted following supervisory consultation.
■ Effective 11/23/2020: CPS staff were directed to return to guidelines issued March 24,
2020 regarding face-to-face initiation of CPS investigations. Staff were directed to initiate
all investigations assigned a four-hour timeframe following normal procedures. Reports
that fell into this category were directed to be initiated through unannounced, face-to-face
contact. At a minimum, all children in the home were to be observed in person for a high-
risk report. In consultation with the supervisor, staff determined whether the allegations
and risk factors presented in an investigation necessitating a 24-hour timeframe should
be conducted face-to-face or through other means. Face-to-face initiation was required
when an immediate safety threat was identified. Initiation of reports assigned a 48-hour or
72-hour timeframe were to be conducted utilizing videoconferencing platforms or other
means. Regardless of the assigned initiation timeframe, face-to-face contact is required
when an immediate safety threat is identified during an investigation or assessment.
Kentucky’s data does not show a significant shift in the length of time from initiation to the
completion of assessment during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Kentucky currently does not track sex trafficking data as a maltreatment type. This element
is collected as a factor within the case. To track sex trafficking as a maltreatment type,
Kentucky would be required to propose amendment to state administrative regulation.
Kentucky is currently discussing this and may make changes in the future.
Kentucky began capturing safe care plan data and referral to appropriate services in FFY
2019 and did not provide a full year of reporting in FFY 2019. FFY 2020 is Kentucky’s first
full year of reporting for infants with prenatal substance exposure. There were no policy or
procedural changes during the COVID-19 pandemic for the referrals of infants with prenatal
substance abuse exposure.
Fatalities
No policies related to child fatality reviews were changed during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Case reviews and meetings continued virtually. The number unique child fatalities has
been confirmed. There was a decrease of five fatalities from the prior FFY. Kentucky has a
Systems Safety Review (SSR) team that continued operations during the COVID-19 pan-
demic. All meetings were transitioned to virtual meeting platforms. All cases where a child
fatality occurred in an active CPS case and/or accepted as an investigation with the fatality/
near fatality designation continued to have an initial review by the system safety analysts and
were presented to the multi-disciplinary team (MDT) for consideration of a comprehensive
analysis.
Kentucky collects death certificates from the Department of Public Health (DPH) to confirm
whether deaths were related to child maltreatment. The state investigates child fatalities that
are a result of maltreatment only. The external panel that conducts child death and near-death
reviews continued to meet virtually. There were minor delays related to the COVID-19
pandemic, however, operations and case reviews continued.
Perpetrators
An overall decrease in the total number of perpetrators from was observed. There was an
increase in the number of unknown or missing perpetrator types from 265 to 403. In all
categories, there was less than a 2 percent change, with most categories seeing a change
below 1 percent. Even though Kentucky reports the NCANDS perpetrator relationship for

noncaregivers (as “other”), Kentucky does not report sex trafficking as a maltreatment type
for NCANDS.
In the FFY 2015 and FFY 2016 submissions, if there were multiple perpetrators named in an
incident, only one was reported per program/subprogram. This has been corrected, therefore,
has led to an increase in total number of unique perpetrators reported in subsequent submis-
sions. Following the FFY 2016 submission, the state made an extraction/mapping change to
report perpetrators more accurately as a prior abuser. The state has seen a decrease in the
number of unique perpetrators from the previous submission. There are no concerns with
data validity.
Services
There was a decrease in prevention referrals during the COVID-19 pandemic. To ensure
the safety of families and staff, providers were not required to conduct in-person visits and
were asked to transition to HIPAA compliant virtual platforms at their discretion. Providers
were directed to utilize recommended safety precautions as directed by CDC guidelines and
Children’s Bureau guidance. Providers were advised to consider altering face-to-face visits to
enhance the assessment or assurance of safety by completing drive-by or outside visits.
There does not appear to be a significant impact of COVID-19 on child removals as the
number of unique reports decreased by 9 percent from FFY 2019 to FFY 2020. Additionally,
because of the initial court closures due to the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a reduc-
tion in family reunifications until the transition to virtual platforms for court hearings was
implemented.
The state invested an additional $10 million in tertiary prevention services in FFY 2020.
Kentucky also began claiming title IV-E funding for prevention services in FFY 2020.
Additionally, Kentucky received funding to support prevention programs targeting fami-
lies with substance misuse as a primary risk factor, through a SAMSHA grant. Many of
Kentucky’s prevention services are provided by contracted service providers.

Louisiana
Contact Kristen Brown Phone 225–678–7779
Title Child Welfare Consultant Email [email protected]
Address Louisiana Department of Children and Family Services

P.O. Box 3318
Baton Rouge, LA 70821
General
As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, Louisiana saw significant decreases in many areas.
Schools are a primary source of reports of abuse and neglect; when the pandemic caused
schools in Louisiana (and across the country) to shut down, a significant decrease in intake
reports was observed. With fewer reports being received, fewer reports were accepted for
investigation, causing there to be fewer alleged victims, perpetrators, non-victims, valid
findings, etc. The Department of Children and Family Services continued to take reports
24 hours a day, 7 days a week, throughout the pandemic. Centralized intake staff work
primarily from their homes and other field staff, who complete the investigations and work
with children and families, also moved to a work-from-home model to continue to ensure the
safety of children in Louisiana. Additionally, two Practice Support Teams were developed to
address case specific questions as they arose.
The Louisiana Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) continues to review and
revise the extraction methodology used to extract the Child File. These changes often reflect
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 identified gaps in reporting as well possible corrections to errors identified during
the extraction process in an attempt 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. Louisiana no longer employs the
Alternative Response model.
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
number of issues were identified. For example, the Department continues to find 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 2020 submission;
however this remains an area requiring review each submission. The Department is currently
designing a new CCWIS system. It is the intention of the new Unify system to capture all
NCANDS requirements in an effective and efficient 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

Louisiana (continued)
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 defined by the Louisiana Children’s Code
■ The alleged perpetrator meets the legal definition 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 within
30 days of receipt of an initial report that is still under investigation, the second report is clas-
sified as an additional information report. Beginning in FFY 2016, more specialized training
was provided to Centralized Intake Managers to aid in determining what cases should be
accepted in accordance with the Louisiana Children’s Code definition of Child Abuse and
Neglect.
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).
The NCANDS disposition of substantiated investigation case is coded in the state as having
a disposition of valid. When determining a final finding 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 identified as affected by either alcohol or
the illegal use of a controlled dangerous substance or withdrawal symptoms as a result of
prenatal illegal drug exposure; and
■ The direct or indirect cause of the alleged or other injury, harm or extreme risk of harm
is a parent; a caretaker as defined in the Louisiana Children’s Code; an adult occupant

of the household in which the child victim normally resides; or, a person who maintains
an interpersonal dating or engagement relationship with the parent or caretaker or legal
custodian who does not reside with the parent or caretaker or legal custodian.
The NCANDS disposition of unsubstantiated investigation case is coded in the state as

having a disposition of invalid. This disposition is defined as a case with no injury or harm,
no extreme risk of harm, insufficient evidence to meet validity standard, or a non-caretaker
perpetrator. If there is insufficient 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 finding of invalid or valid
whenever possible. For cases in which the investigation findings do not meet the standard for
invalid or valid, additional contacts or investigative activities should be conducted to deter-
mine a finding. When a finding cannot be determined following such efforts, an inconclusive
finding is considered. It is appropriate when there is some evidence to support a finding that
abuse or neglect occurred but there is not enough credible evidence to meet the standard
for a valid finding. The inconclusive finding 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.
Louisiana also employs the use of an Unable to Locate finding and a Client Non-Cooperation
finding. The Unable to Locate finding is used when the Department has made extensive
efforts to locate the alleged victim and their family. A finding 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 finding: (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. These
findings, Inconclusive, Unable to Locate, and Client Non-Cooperation, per NCANDS map-
ping, map to Closed—No Finding.
Children
Safety of staff and Louisiana families was and is of the utmost concern. For investigations,
policy shifted that upon arrival to a home, the assigned worker should complete screen-
ing questions for all household members prior to entering the home. If the screening tool
suggested possible COVID-19 exposure, the COVID-19 Practice Support Team would be
consulted to determine the best way to move forward with the investigation. Safety and risk
of the child victim(s) as well as the worker were taken into consideration to determine the
next steps. No policy changes were made, with regard to response priorities; the four current
response levels remained the same throughout the pandemic.
The Department implemented a new case management system in 2018. During that time,
the ability to identify victims of juvenile sex trafficking was made possible through the
implementation of a new category of child abuse and neglect. Louisiana reports information
on victims with parent/caregiver perpetrators; those victims are substantiated only when the
parent or caregiver is found to be culpable in the alleged sexual trafficking incident.
Additionally, increased focus has gone to drug and alcohol affected newborns. Identification
of drug and alcohol abuse by the parents has been identified as a risk factor. However, report-
ing in this area has been difficult due to some issues leading back to one distinct problem:
Identification of the reporter as medical personnel. Very often, the hospital social worker
calls as opposed to a doctor or nurse. Staff require 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 also
need additional guidance regarding when to identify a plan of safe care as being in place. The
Department believes that children entering out-of-home (foster care) or in-home services are
not properly being identified as having a plan of safe care, therefore under-reporting those
vulnerable children identified as being substance exposed.
Fatalities
Louisiana saw a decrease in the number of fatalities from FFY 2019 to FFY 2020. Louisiana
reported 19 fatalities during FFY 2020. The Department employed the Eckerd Rapid Safety
Feedback model during FFY 2017 and continuing through FFY 2019. The purpose of this
model was to better identify children at higher risk of having a poor outcome. The Eckerd
Rapid Safety Feedback model was discontinued at the beginning of FFY 2020. Instead, the
Department began identifying high-risk cases and alleged victims using a number of differ-
ent variables including age of the alleged victim, type of alleged abuse, previous history with
the Department, etc.
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 such post-investigation services as in-home family
services, foster care, adoption, and protective daycare. Many services are provided through
contracted 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.
The COVID-19 Pandemic caused a shift from face-to-face focused services to virtual ser-
vices. Early on, the Department put into place case contact regulations that gave staff specific
directions for what type of contact was required. For example, if no safety plan was in place
for an in-home services case, staff could leverage FaceTime and Skype to complete visits.
Screening questions were put in place for any family who staff needed to see in-person. A
COVID-19 Practice Support Team was available to help offer guidance to staff in situations
that may be considered questionable. For children in foster care/adoptions, different guide-
lines were set forth for staff, making virtual face-to-face contact requirements weekly rather
than monthly; and Skype/FaceTime was to be used for parent visits as well, unless the case
met certain criteria. The Department has made every effort to continue to provide services
which would move cases along and not be held up due to the pandemic.

Maine
Contact Mandy Milligan Phone 207–592–4785
Title Data and Analytics Manager Email [email protected]

Office of Child and Family Services
Address 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 assessed for meeting the
statutory threshold for an in-person Office of Child and Family Services (OCFS) response. It
identifies how quickly to respond, and the path of response.
Reports
The number of alleged abuse and neglect reports received by Maine’s Intake Unit increased
in FFY 2020 from FFY 2019. All reports, including reports that are not appropriate, and
are referred to as screened out, are documented in the State Automated Child Welfare
Information System (SACWIS). The screening decision is performed at the Intake Unit using
the SDM Tool. Reports that do not meet the statutory definition of child abuse and/or neglect
and the criteria for appropriateness of child abuse /neglect report for response is not met, are
preliminarily screened out. The Maine statutory definition 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 defined as the date and time (in hours and minutes)
of the first 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 total number of victims associated with completed assessments in FFY 2020 increased
from FFY 2019 due to the overall increase in reports and assessments assigned. The state
documents all household members and other individuals involved in a report. Some children
in the household do not have specific allegations associated with them, and so are not des-
ignated as alleged victims. These children are now included in the NCANDS Child File for
Maine.
For the NCANDS Child File category of victims in a substantiated report, Maine combines
children with the state dispositions of 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 assessment or while in care. This information is now available in the Child File for

Maine (continued)
deaths that occurred after June 2019. Various state offices, along with the multidisciplinary
child death and serious injury review board continue to share and compile child fatality data.
Perpetrators
Relationships of perpetrators to victims are designated in the SACWIS. Perpetrators receive
notice of their rights to appeal any maltreatment finding. Low to moderate severity findings
(indicated) that are appealed result in only a desk review. High severity findings (substanti-
ated) 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.

Maryland
Contact Hilary Laskey Phone 410-245-9043
Title Manager Email [email protected]
Address Maryland DHR–Social Services Administration

311 W. Saratoga Street
Baltimore, MD 21201
The state was not able to submit commentary in time for the Child Maltreatment 2020 report.

Massachusetts
Contact Nicholas Campolettano Phone 508–929–2013
Title Management Analyst Email [email protected]

Office of Management, Planning, and Analysis
Address Massachusetts Department of Children and Families

600 Washington Street
Boston, MA 02211
General
The onset of the pandemic upended the operations of the Massachusetts Department of
Children and Families (DCF) beginning in mid-March 2020 through the end of the FFY. A
gubernatorial Executive Order issued March 10, 2020, continued operation of essential ser-
vices, closed certain workplaces and limited gatherings. This Order was extended until May
18, 2020, when Massachusetts released multi-phased reopening protocols, which remained in
effect until the end of the FFY.
On March 13, 2020, all state officers were ordered closed to the public and to staff, with the
exception of employees needed to maintain essential operations. The vast majority of agency
staff, including frontline social workers, shifted to teleworking as the agency immediately
began work to rapidly change operations to find a balance between critical child protec-
tion responsibilities and mitigating the spread of the virus by scaling back the face-to-face
contact that is a foundation of social work. The Department’s after-hours Child-at-Risk
hotline has remained fully operational during nights, weekends, and holidays when state
offices are closed, and social workers continued to respond 24/7 to in-person to emergencies
and when serious child safety concerns arose. Because the majority of frontline staff were
already equipped with Department-issued mobile devices, the transition to telework was less
strenuous. The Department distributed laptops to enable all screeners, including those on the
after-hours hotline, to take phone calls remotely.
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 hours. While agency
policies remained intact during the pandemic, the Department began developing supplemen-
tary COVID-19 guidance in March to maintain quality case practice. The interim guidance
address prioritization of child safety and the shift to virtual family visits.
Massachusetts uses a single child protection response, with all screened in reports assigned
to investigation-trained response workers. This places the decision-making regarding the
appropriate level of department 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.

Massachusetts (continued)
Massachusetts saw the steepest declines in abuse and neglect reports to the agency, known
as 51A reports, during March and April when schools shifted to full-time remote learning
and the state was under a stay-at-home order. Weekly and monthly tracking of 51A reports
showed, over time, the greatest deficit in reporting was among school personnel. With the
arrival of warmer weather and declining infection rates and deaths, Massachusetts’ eased
its stay-at-home order. As children became more visible in the community over the sum-
mer, mandated reporter filings increased, although the total volume of reports has remained
consistently below pre-pandemic levels.
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/
investigations completed during the federal fiscal year, 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’ contractor for the after-hours Child-
At-Risk hotline The number of workers completing assessments was not reported because
assessments are case-management activities rather than screening, intake, and investigation
activities.
Children
Throughout the pandemic, DCF has continued to conduct face-to-face investigations, the
after-hours Child-At-Risk hotline has remained fully operational, and the Department has
responded in-person to emergencies and when a child’s safety is at serious risk. For non-
emergency responses, a combination of in-person and virtual non-emergency responses was
used in the earliest stages of the pandemic, when COVID-19 infection rates were high, less
was known about the virus, and Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) supplies were limited.
As PPE became more readily available the Department acquired and maintained a plentiful
inventory of masks, gowns, cleaning supplies, face shields, gloves, and goggles, enabling
more face-to-face contact.
As Massachusetts commenced reopening, guidance regarding in-person case contact for

response and with intact families, was issued in August. At this time, the Department began
transitioning non-emergency responses to mostly in-person contact, with children being seen
in-person within 3 working days as stipulated in the Protective Intake Policy. For routine
visits with intact families, the guidance required alternating in-person and virtual visits
every other month but adjusting this practice based on a child’s risk level and in communi-
ties when average daily infection rates became extraordinarily high. All pandemic-related
DCF guidance is written and updated in accordance with the recommendations from the
Massachusetts Department of Public Health (DPH) and the national Centers for Disease
Control (CDC). While 51A reporting decreased during the pandemic, 51As were screened-in
and supported/substantiated at slightly higher rates than before COVID-19.
In Massachusetts, intake screening and response decisions require the lowest legal threshold,
or level of proof, of “reasonable cause”, as required by 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 deci-
sion is substantiated concern, an allegation decision of unsupported is mapped to other.
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 specificity 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. For
both the alcohol and drug abuse elements, the indicator is marked as a “yes” for any informa-
tion 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.
Per the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA), the Department changed its
regulations and policies to accept reports of allegations against noncaretakers (i.e. any person
suspected of being involved with the trafficking of a child). The Commonwealth’s approach
provides access to supportive services through the child welfare agency, while law enforce-
ment seeks to hold traffickers accountable. Most of the identified perpetrators are nonrela-
tives—the relationships are identified in the DCF system as “unknown” or “other person.”
During FFY 2020 electronic case record system changes were implemented 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 DCF reports child fatalities attributed to maltreatment only after informa-
tion 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 office determines that child abuse or neglect was a contributing factor
in a child’s death or certifies that it is unable to determine the manner of death. Information
used to determine if the fatality was due to abuse or neglect also include data compiled by
DCF’s Case Investigation Unit and reports of alleged child abuse and neglect filed 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 only reports fatalities due to abuse or neglect if an allegation
related to the child’s death is supported. During the pandemic, DCF continued to review
child fatalities in accordance with agency policy and protocols.
Services
Data are collected only for those services provided by DCF. DCF may be granted custody of
a child who is never removed from home and placed in substitute care. In most cases when
DCF is granted custody of a child, the child has an appointed representative. Representative
data are not always recorded in FamilyNet. Prior to the pandemic, there was a declining
number of children requiring foster care placement services and this remains unchanged. In
alignment with the decline in abuse and neglect reports to the agency, home removals are
also down compared to prior years.
Massachusetts continues to work collaboratively with contracted providers who provide

in-home services, such as therapy and parent skills coaching, to intact families. Early in the
pandemic, the Department issued guidance specifically for these providers to encourage
consistency and continuity of services to the greatest extent possible. During the pandemic,
providers have independently made decisions about service provision and deliver a blend of
in-person and virtual services.

Michigan
Contact Theresa Keyes Phone 517–574–2257
Title Division of Continuous Quality Improvement Email [email protected]

Manager
Address Michigan Department of Health and Human Services

Children’s Services Agency
235 South Grand Avenue, Suite 505
Lansing, MI 48933
Contact Cynthia Eberhard Phone 517–896–6213
Title Child Welfare Data Manager, Michigan Statewide Email [email protected]

Automated Child Welfare Information System
Address Michigan Department of Health and Human Services

One Michigan Avenue Building
120 North Washington Square, 8th Floor
Lansing, MI 48933
General
The Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (MDHHS) does not have a differ-
ential response or alternate response program. MDHHS is responsible for the investigation of
complaints of child abuse allegedly committed by a person responsible for the child’s health
and welfare.
Michigan utilized funds under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act to
target service delivery to higher risk populations including those with recent interaction with
the Children’s Protective Services program.
Reports
Michigan experienced a sharp decline in the number of abuse or neglect reports to the
statewide 24-hour hotline due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the state executive Stay at
Home orders issued during the period of March 2020 through May 2020. The state’s educa-
tion system moved to fully virtual school from March 12, 2020 until the end of the school
year in June 2020 reducing referrals from education and childcare professionals. The state’s
child welfare 24-hour hotline staff remained fully operational without a gap in coverage or
responsiveness to the public. Michigan made no changes to the state’s CPS policy complaint
assignment criteria which would result in this complaint assignment decline.
Children
Michigan’s Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System (MiSACWIS) allows for
reporting on individual children. Michigan did not change any policies related to conducting
investigations and assessments in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, however operational
changes were made in some investigation requirements to increase worker, child, and family
safety. There was no impact on the investigation timelines from initiation to determination of
the allegations; the state saw an improvement of one hour from the previous fiscal year.
The entire child welfare staff statewide transitioned immediately to mobile work using vir-
tual technology. Specialized teams were developed for in-person contacts required to com-
plete all investigations and initial safety assessments, limiting broad statewide staff exposure
to COVID-19 from March 2020 through June 2020. Remaining portions of the investigative
process were completed using virtual and phone contacts. All in-person caseworker activities
resumed statewide with gradual implementation by June 13, 2020 and with full resumption

Michigan(continued)
in July 2020 with the provision of mitigation strategies for staff and the public in effort to
minimize the spread of COVID-19.
Michigan continues to improve data collection in the area for infants with prenatal substance
exposure through collaboration with our medical community and continuous training.
Michigan policy indicates that CPS will investigate complaints alleging that an infant was
born exposed to substances not attributed to medical treatment and subsequent requirements
for confirming abuse/neglect must find that a parent’s substance use/abuse impacts child
safety/well-being. The department has established policy, process, and reporting require-
ments to ensure these families are offered a plan of safe care through either a public health or
child welfare contact.
Fatalities
Michigan reports all child abuse or neglect fatality data within the Child File. Michigan
receives reports on child fatalities from several sources including law enforcement agencies,
medical examiners/coroners, vital records, and child death review teams. The determination
of whether maltreatment occurred is dependent upon completion of a CPS investigation that
confirmed abuse or neglect. Fatality reports are not included in the NCANDS submission
unless a link between the child fatality and maltreatment is established. Michigan’s Child
Death Review team continued operations despite COVID-19. The state utilizes data on child
fatalities to provide recommendations, raise awareness, and encourage initiatives to decrease
such tragedies.
Perpetrators
Perpetrators are defined as persons responsible for a child’s health or welfare who have
abused or neglected a child. Michigan has made improvements in reporting perpetrators
based on relationships a perpetrator may have with a parent such as a Living Together
Partner. Michigan does not report noncaregiver perpetrators of sex trafficking to NCANDS.
The state refers these adults to law enforcement. This population does not meet criteria of
“nonparent adult” or “person responsible” as defined in Michigan’s Child Protection Law.
Services
Michigan is not able to accurately report on all prevention services within the Agency File.
Michigan continues to report services from Promoting Safe and Stable Families through
programing by Families First of Michigan, Family Reunification Program, and Families
Together Building Solutions-Pathways of Hope. In response to the COVID-19 Pandemic,
Michigan expanded the eligibility criteria to at risk families to receive Families First pro-
graming. Overall, in-home service programing did see a decrease in service provision as
result of the statewide Safer at Home executive orders.
Michigan continues to improve reporting consistent with the Comprehensive Addiction and
Recovery Act of 2016 (CARA) plans of safe care through staff training, improved guidelines,
and collaboration with the medical profession statewide. Michigan refers children birth
through age three to programs under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. IDEA
is managed within the Michigan Department of Education and data is not available to report
in the NCANDS’s Agency File.

Minnesota
Contact Gregory Rafn Phone 651–431–3774
Title Research and Evaluation Supervisor Email [email protected]

Program Child Safety and Permanency Division
Address Minnesota Department of Human Services

444 Lafayette Road N.
St 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
defined 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 definition of alleged child maltreat-
ment, 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 the local
agencies (counties, combined agencies, and two tribal agencies). In Minnesota, CPS staff
are employees of the local agencies rather than the state. The COVID-19 pandemic had an
impact on the number of alleged CA/N reports during FFY 2020. Overall, the number of
reports declined 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 Executive Orders from the Governor required individuals, organizations, and
businesses to intermittently “stay at home,” shutdown, and/or engage in virtual services and
education. It is likely that the physical absence of children and youth from schools, doctor’s
offices, places of worship and other places minimized exposure to mandated reporters result-
ing in a reduction in reports of alleged CA/N.
Overall, local agencies reported an increase in the number of child protection staff, compared
to last year. It is difficult to generalize the impact COVID-19 had on the child protection
workforce in Minnesota due to regional and county COVID-19 experiential impact and varia-
tion. Many counties, however, reported numerous challenges responding to changing staffing
levels due to COVID-19 related leaves, and the workforce balancing caring for children
at home due to multiple restrictions/activities intended to slow the spread of Coronavirus.
While the department has developed a new Minnesota Child Welfare Training Academy
through a joint venture with the University of Minnesota, substantial delays in roll out of the
academy as a result of the pandemic, and the associated efforts to address it, have impeded
initiatives related to the development, stability, and wellbeing of the workforce.

Minnesota (continued)
All three responses (family and facility investigations, and family assessment) apply to
screened-in reports of alleged child maltreatment in Minnesota. There was not a signifi-
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.
Approximately 75 percent of screened out referrals are because the stated concerns do not
meet established criteria in Minnesota’s Child Maltreatment Intake, Screening, and Response
Path Guidelines or the definitions of child abuse or neglect under Minnesota law. Other rea-
sons 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 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 determina-
tion (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 nonmandated
Children
During FFY 2020 the number of victims decreased. The number of victims is based on
determined/substantiated child victims in investigation cases. Due to COVID-19 related
public health guidelines and Governor Executive Orders requiring activities to slow the
spread of coronavirus, modifications were made to the timelines and face-to-face require-
ments 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. It was permissible for child welfare workers
to ease timelines in situations where the offender was not a primary caregiver and did not
have access to the child victim. Alternative methods of contact were allowed, including video
conferencing, for less serious conditions as determined by the local screening agency.
The department encouraged face-to-face contacts and indicated that alternative methods
should be used sparingly. When alternative methods were used, video was preferred.
Overall, the median time to initial contact throughout the State was longer compared to last
year, however, this was more evident for reports requiring a five-day response opposed to
a 24-hour response. 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 investigation. 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 expo-
sure. While there were no policy changes during the FFY 2020, 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
Minnesota’s Child Mortality Review Panel is a Collaborative Safety focused multidisci-
plinary team including representatives from state, local, and private agencies. Disciplines
represented include social work, law enforcement, medical, legal, and university-level
educators. Minnesota’s review process is a robust, thorough and time intensive endeavor that
includes a review of the child and the family’s history of involvement with the child welfare
system. The review is designed to analyze our system to identify opportunities for improve-
ment as well as barriers to providing the best services to children and families of Minnesota.
It uses state of the art safety science which engages staff and community partners in the
review process, while simultaneously responding to any immediate safety concerns that may
arise.
The primary source of information on child deaths resulting from child maltreatment is the
local CPS staff; however, some reports originate with law enforcement 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 certificates filed with the Minnesota Department of Health
(MDH) to ensure that all child deaths are reviewed. The department’s critical incident review
team directs the local agency 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 near fatality or 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.
In FFY 2020, the number of maltreatment-related fatalities as compared to 2019, increased

from 17 to 21. 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. Minnesota utilizes a systemic critical
incident review process, the foundations of which are based on safety science concepts and
principals, to review cases that include maltreatment related fatalities and near fatalities. This
process results in the identification of systemic barriers and influences that impact the work

in Minnesota’s child welfare system which are used to inform the state’s broader continuous
quality improvement efforts.
Other than holding the reviews and meetings virtually, all other policies and procedures for
reviewing child fatalities in Minnesota remained the same during the pandemic.
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 trafficking are
included.
Services
Primary prevention services are often provided without reference to individually identified
recipients or their precise ages, so reporting by age is not possible. Clients of an unknown
age are not included as specifically 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 difficult. 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.
The number of children entering out-of-home care declined from 2019 to 2020. The sharpest
decline occurred shortly after Minnesota’s first COVID-19 related Executive Orders targeted
toward slowing of the spread of Coronavirus lockdown in March 2020, and remained at a
lower level for the remainder of the year. Children in placement have had less contact with
parents and siblings due to visitation restrictions as well as less face-to-face contact with
workers in person. Alternate methods of face-to-face contact, including video, have been
used.

Mississippi
Contact Jaworski T. Davenport Phone 601–359–4797
Title Deputy Commissioner of Child Safety Email [email protected]
Address Mississippi Department of Child Protection Services

P. O. Box 346
Jackson, MS 39205
General
All MDCPS staff began teleworking in March 2020 and have continued some hybrid of
telework and in-office work throughout the pandemic to limit exposure to, and spread of,
COVID-19. All caseworker and caseworker supervisory staff, including the staff tasked with
investigating allegations of abuse and neglect, have been deemed essential employees through-
out the pandemic to allow continued travel and access to all necessary resources to complete
investigations and other casework duties.
Guidance was issued early in the pandemic to ensure safety precautions were utilized by
caseworker staff when making face-to-face contact to mitigate the risk of exposure while
continuing to make face-to-face contacts. And policy has required continued face-to-face
contact throughout the pandemic except where particularized concerns for exposure were pres-
ent: i.e. a household member with a positive test or known exposure to someone with a positive
test. The following guidance applies to all in-home visits for any purpose. When preparing for
an in-home visit, staff must make a phone call to the home and speak with a member of the
household prior to making the planned visit. During that phone call, ask the household member
whether they or any other member of the household have:
1) Traveled outside the United States or used mass transit within the United States within
the last 14 days;
2) Had contact with anyone with known COVID-19, or with anyone undergoing medical
evaluation to determine whether they have COVID-19, within the last 14 days; and
3) Has any symptoms of a respiratory infection (e.g., cough, sore throat, fever, or shortness
of breath).
If the household member responds “No” to all three questions, proceed with the visit as normal.
If the household member responds “Yes” to any of the three questions, immediately staff the
case with a supervisor to assess whether there are any urgent risks or needs requiring immedi-
ate attention. If there are urgent needs, assess whether those needs can be safely met remotely.
If the urgent needs can be met remotely, forego an in-person visit and meet the needs remotely,
instruct the household member to stay home and contact the Mississippi State Department
of Health to report their potential exposure to COVID-19, and contact the Mississippi State
Department of Health directly to report the potential case of COVID-19.
If the client must be seen in person to meet urgent needs, instruct the affected household
member to remain at home and contact their medical professional immediately, to use a mask
if available, to place themselves in a separate room with the door closed if possible, and to
be assessed by a medical professional before the visit occurs if time permits. When making
the visit in the home with an affected household member, avoid all contact with the affected
household member if possible and limit time in the home to that necessary to meet the urgent
needs. If there are not urgent needs, instruct the household member to stay home and contact

Mississippi (continued)
the Mississippi State Department of Health to report their potential exposure to COVID-19,
and contact the Mississippi State Department of Health to directly report the potential case of
COVID-19.
Reports
No changes to the referral process were implemented. There was a noted decline in the
number of referrals received during the initial pandemic months as compared to prior report-
ing months and timeframes. The Department hypothesizes that this decline was attributable
to lockdowns in the state decreasing potential reporters’ access to children. The hotline
maintained 24/7 operations. No overall agency staffing reductions were experienced. There
may have been intermittent staff outages related to personal exposure or positive tests.
Children
Child abuse and neglect investigations must proceed even as we move through the spread
of COVID-19. When making initial contact with any individual during an investigation,
ask the three screening questions above. If the individual answers “Yes” to any of the three
questions, instruct the individual to stay home and contact the Mississippi State Department
of Health to report their potential exposure to COVID-19, and contact the Mississippi State
Department of Health directly to report the potential case of COVID-19. Further, limit con-
tact with potentially affected individuals to the minimum amount necessary to complete the
investigation. No changes were made to calculations of initiation and completion timeframes.
Fatalities
As of March 2020, Child Death Review (CDR) meetings were virtually attended by Tonya
Rogillio (Deputy Commissioner of Child Welfare), Tara LeBlanc (Interim Director-Field
Operations-South), and previously Bonlitha Windham (Office Director of Therapeutic &
Prevention Services). No changes were made to the CDR policies and operations continued
throughout the pandemic.
Perpetrators
Noncaregiver perpetrators of sex trafficking are reported to NCANDS. The NCANDS
category of “Other” perpetrator relationship is coded when the alleged perpetrator’s relation-
ship to the victim is known but it doesn’t fit into the other categories listed.
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 reunifications
after a foster care episode or prevent the need for initial removals from home into foster care.
Beginning on October 1, 2017, the CFSSP transitioned 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 com-
munity-based family preservation, reunification 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
Mississippi (continued)
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 functioning
4) enhancing parenting skills
5) increasing access to social and formal and informal concrete supports
6) addressing mental health and substance use issues
7) reducing child behavior problems
8) safely reunifying families.
For in-CIRCLE Services which are provided through Youth Villages and Canopy, these two
Providers offered TeleHealth as an alternative service contact during the COVID-19 shut-
down period.
The “Other” funding sources for children who received preventive services from the state
during the year are Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Children’s Trust
Fund of Mississippi and the Community Based Child Abuse Prevent Grant (CBCAP).
Prevention services and support are provided via parenting programs, therapy, and other
support services through subgrantees.
For FFY 2020, the Dorcas In-Home Family Support Program is another program that pro-
vides family-driven, youth-guided interventions to improve the stability of enrolled families
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. The goal is to reduce the likelihood of removal or other disruption of their living
arrangement.
For Prevention subgrantee’s, the reported numbers for FFY 2020 were 6,427 families served
and children-2,581 served. Due to COVID-19, one of our subgrantee’s conducted Live
Parenting Sessions. There were 3,509 views of their virtual program.

Missouri
Contact Stacy Johns Phone 573–368–3440
Title Program Specialist Email [email protected]
Address Missouri Department of Social Services Children’s Division

1111 Kingshighway, Suite A
Rolla, MO 65401–2922
General
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 confirmed, 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 notified of reports classified 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 first-time noncriminal
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 classified 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 specific need exists.
Reports
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.
The response time indicated is based on the time from the login of the call to the time of the
first 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 officers, juvenile court offi-
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 2020 does not
include initial contact with multidisciplinary team members.

Missouri (continued)
The FFY 2020 submission shows a decrease in the number of records from the previous year
and a decrease in the number of unique records. The number of reports to the call center
significantly decreased in the beginning months of the pandemic. Missouri was proactive in
analyzing data on both calls and reporters. We tracked data on changes in call volume both
weekly and monthly. As soon as our call volume decreased, we were communicating with the
public and community partners regarding the lack of calls and concerns this brought for child
safety. The Department of Social Services urged every Missourian to be especially atten-
tive to the safety and wellbeing of children and strongly encouraged anyone who suspects
child abuse or neglect to call the toll-free hotline. Our agency created a video regarding the
importance of making hotline calls and the ease with which mandated reporters could report
online. We publicized call volume decreases, shared data with MO Law Enforcement agen-
cies and placed our video on social media sites which gradually let to increased call volumes.
Our Child Abuse Neglect Call Center continued to run a 24/7 hotline with no staffing
decreases. A change was made to the criteria that allowed more calls that were screened out,
to be accepted as a referral in order to reach more children and ensure needs were being
met during the pandemic. While the pandemic contributed to significant decreases in the
number of records from 2019 to 2020, we experienced an increase in the number of referrals
screened-out from 2019 to 2020.
Changes were made to our state’s calculation for our time from the start of an investigation
for the Agency File by mirroring the same logic used in the Child File. Missouri reported a
significant increase in response time with two contributing factors:
1) COVID-19 increased the number of multidisciplinary team members making initial
face-to-face contacts that impacted CD calculated response times.
2) Our state also took full advantage of lower call volumes during the beginning of
COVID-19 and many old records were cleaned up with data entry to showed initial
face-to-face times which resulted in first response times that had the appearance of being
many months to more than a year from the report date although prior contacts were often
made. This heavily impacted Missouri data on the increase in response time hours.
As our agency staffing was impacted by COVID-19, we tracked staffing needs and redistrib-
uted reports and staff in order to meet the call volume needs across the state. As policies and
procedures were adjusted, our state developed a resource page for team members to locate
all actions in one location on our Intranet. Once policies for virtual visits, curbside visits or
safe in-person visits were developed, we added an indicator in FACES in order to track any
visit that was held outside of normal protocols. Our multidisciplinary team (MDT) partners
greatly assisted in making child contacts to ensure safety, which did show in our NCANDS
data as decrease in our timely initial contact although it was actually an increase when MDT
was calculated.
Children
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 many situations we did continue to investigate reports in-person. Safety of children

continued to be a primary concern and child removals were not impacted. Per the Supreme
Court of Missouri’s order issued on March 22, 2020, all in person hearings were suspended
with the exceptions to include proceedings pursuant to Chapters 210 and 211 pertaining to
juvenile delinquency, abuse, and neglect, termination of parental rights to ensure the safety
of children remained a priority.
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 defined by state statute. Therefore, the
rate of prior victimization, is not comparable to states that define victimization in a differ-
ent 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 2020
substantiated records, and dividing it by the total number of prior substantiated records, not
including unsubstantiated or alternate response records.
The state does not retain the maltreatment type for reports as they are classified as alternative
response nonvictims. Missouri tracks cases with sex trafficking victims as a result of the
2017 Preventing Sex Trafficking and Strengthening Families Act. With the 2019 expansion of
the definition 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 trafficking as a caregiver and include them in NCANDS data.
Missouri’s concern with barriers is the current lack of an evidence-based models specific to
assessing, identifying, and responding to trafficking as it relates to working with children
through the child welfare system. However, CD has worked with other states to develop a
comprehensive assessment tool for child victims of both labor and sex trafficking. This new
tool will be incorporated into CD policy and supported by Advanced Human Trafficking
training in the near future.
Missouri collects data on plans of safe care in the instance of a Newborn Crisis Assessment
Referral. During FFY 2020 there were 3,491 children younger than 1 year who were screened
out of the NCANDS Child File and alerted to Missouri Children’s Division as Newborn
Crisis Assessment Referrals. Of those children referred, 1,050 had a plan of safe care. There
were an additional 14 children in the Child File that met the criteria, but were not reported as
having a plan of safe care because plans are only required on Newborn Crisis Assessments
in Missouri. 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. Missouri does determine
substantiated findings when a death is due to neglect as defined in statute unlike many other
states. Therefore, Missouri is able to thoroughly track and report fatalities as compared to
states without similar statutes. 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.
In FFY 2020, Missouri adjusted coding on our mapping document in order to more accu-
rately provide child fatality information in the NCANDS Child File, based on a mapping
issue found in FFY 2019 data. Staff were trained to make the preponderance of evidence
findings on the actual allegation (physical abuse, neglect, lack of supervision) rather than the
fatality itself. This was a successful change in gathering accurate data.
Perpetrators
The state retains individual findings 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 definition of those respon-
sible for the care, custody and control of a child was enacted. Current statutory definition 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 of off school grounds.
The last bullet was added to the definition 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.
The FFY 2019 Missouri submission indicated a higher number of perpetrators in the cat-
egory of “other” due to a policy that changed the wording “paramour” to “partner” which
added additional coding that fell to the “other” category. For FFY 2020 Missouri updated
coding on our mapping document to capture “partner” which resulted in an elevated percent
change 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 notifies the primary contact to initiate the intake and evaluation process.
Postinvestigation services are reported for a client who had intensive in-home services or
alternative care opening between the report date and 90 days post disposition date or an active
family-centered services case at the time of the report. Data for child contacts with court-
appointed special advocates (CASA) were provided by Missouri CASA. Data regarding guard-
ian ad litem information was not available for FFY 2020. The Children’s Trust Fund provided
supplemental data regarding preventive services.
In March 2020, CD and contracted in-home service providers were given guidance on how to
utilize virtual visitation for in-home services provisions for families. The guidance included
when to use daily virtual visits, weekly virtual visits, and curb side checks. In situations where
families did not have access to participate in a virtual visit, in-home providers were instructed
to consult with their supervisor to determine the feasibility of completing a curbside check of
the child to assure safety. For all open in-home services cases supervisors were to assess cases
with case managers and have the flexibility to require more frequent virtual visitation depend-
ing on risk and needs of the family. All alternative methods of visitation was to be thoroughly
documented and identified with the FACES system by checking the COVID-19 protocol box.
In May 2020, CD and contracted in-home service providers were given additional guidance
for providing face-to-face contact for in-home services provisions for families. The guidance
allowed for in-home services to be in-person with a family after consideration of health and
safety factors and proper screening of the family to minimize the spread of COVID-19. It
required the screenings to be completed at each visit. In situations where in-person contact was
not feasible, in-home service providers continued to provide increased virtual visitation with
families. All deviations or alternative methods to assure child safety was to be through and
identified within the FACES system by checking the COVID-19 protocol box.
Additional resources for Older Youth (OY), through federal legislation, were instrumental in
providing financial assistance to OY impacted by the pandemic. Missouri also increased the
expectation that all OY have weekly contact from our agency to ensure all needs were being
met during the pandemic and especially during lock-down.

Montana
Contact Janice Basso Phone 406–841–2414
Title IT and Data Systems Manager Email [email protected]
Address Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services

Child and Family Services Division
301 S. Park P.O. Box 8005
General
Montana does not have a differential response track for investigations. A new computer
system is being developed through a modular approach with the first module focused on
intake and investigations of child abuse/neglect which went live in December 2019.
Reports
Montana Child and Family Services has a Centralized Intake Bureau or call center that
screen each referral of child abuse or neglect to determine if it requires investigation, assis-
tance, or referral to another entity. Referrals requiring immediate assessment or investigation
are immediately called out to the field office. By policy, these Priority 1 reports receive
an assessment or investigation within 24 hours. All other child protective services reports
that require an assessment or investigation are sent to the field within 24 hours. In general,
this has resulted in improved response times. Montana experienced a slight decrease in the
number of calls at the beginning of the pandemic, however this decrease did not last very
long. Montana did not change screening protocols.
Children
Montana continues to conduct all investigations per policy and did not make any modifica-
tions to timeframes. Montana has not experienced any delays in investigation decisions/
outcomes.
Fatalities
Due to the lack of legal jurisdiction, information in our system does not include child deaths
that occurred in cases investigated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Tribal Social Services or
Tribal Law Enforcement. Montana had a FICMR (fetal, infant, child mortality review) meet-
ing scheduled for May 2020 and chose to postpone it until early fall when a virtual meeting
was conducted.
Perpetrators
Unknown perpetrators are given a common identifier within the state’s data system.
Services
Montana CPS workers and providers conducted virtual delivery of prevention and in-home
services for the first 8 weeks of the pandemic and then returned to providing these services
in person. Data for prevention services are collected by State Fiscal Year (SFY). There have
been no significant changes in our removal and reunification rates attributed to the pandemic.

Nebraska
Contact Greg Brockmeier Phone 402–471–6615
Title IT Business Systems Analyst Supervisor Email [email protected]
Address Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services

1033 O Street, Suite 400
Lincoln, NE 68508
General
During FFY 2020, 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. 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 assessing 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 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 findings, and offering
concrete supports, among other things. Alternative Response started as a pilot in five coun-
ties in 2014 and has since expanded statewide as of October 1, 2018. Data for traditional and
alternative response cases are reported to NCANDS.
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 profession-
als—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 the creation of detailed practical and
achievable safety plans. In the last two years, DCFS has substantially completed the roll-out of
all 12 modules of SOP training statewide, continued the training process with the case manage-
ment contractor for the Eastern Service Area, and is developing ongoing refresher training for
all state staff.
Reports
All reports of child abuse and neglect are received at the toll-free, 24/7, centralized Abuse
and Neglect Hotline. The Hotline workers and supervisors utilize SDM to determine whether
a report meets criteria for intervention as well as the subsequent response time for accepted
reports. Accepted reports are assigned to a worker to conduct an initial assessment, which
includes a SDM Safety Assessment and SDM Safety Plan (if applicable) and a 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.
Nebraska experienced an increase in unique screened-in reports to the Hotline in FFY

2020. Despite this increase, Nebraska experienced a decrease in screened-out reports and
an increase in children who were screened out during FFY 2020. In June 2019, a policy was
Nebraska (continued)
enacted whereby all reports made by medical professionals which involve an identified child
or child victim age five and younger are accepted for assessment. That same month, Central
Office program policy staff also began performing second-level reviews of all reports that
are screened out at the Hotline. The purpose of these reviews is to ensure that the correct
screening decisions are made with regard to reports that are not accepted for assessment.
These changes in policy and practice may account for the increase in screened-in reports and
decrease in screened-out reports.
From the onset and during the pandemic, referrals of child abuse and neglect have been
affected within Nebraska. Overall, the Nebraska Child and Adult Abuse and Neglect
Intake Hotline (Hotline) experienced decreased call volume. Specifically, there have been
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 experiencing high levels of stress and involving more
serious physical abuse to young children.
Nebraska’s Hotline has continued to be in full operation 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
Hotline staffing levels have not changed, but due to lower call volume, Hotline staff have
assisted with other state programs and projects to connect families in need with Economic
Assistance during the pandemic. Nebraska 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. Specifically, 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 deadlines and to complete safety
assessments timely and accurately. All reports made by a medical professional involving a
child 0-5 years of age is accepted at the Hotline. Through the Comprehensive Addiction and
Recovery Act (CARA), Nebraska has set up a notification process for birthing hospitals. If
the hospital does not feel that there are concerns of abuse or neglect, but an infant was born
affected by substance use, a notification is made to DHHS. While we continue to work with our
hospitals on the implementation of CARA and the difference between reporting and sending a
notification, some infants are missed due to notification not being sent to DHHS. In November
2020 an updated letter explaining the two processes 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 that were not able to join live.
Children
In FFY 2020, Nebraska saw a decrease in unique child victims. The expansion of alternative
response partly accounts for this decrease, along with the effect the COVID-19 pandemic
has had on the volume of calls to the Hotline originating from schools. Further, DCFS policy
has been clarified and augmented with regard to Agency Substantiated findings and Central
Registry entries. All agency substantiated findings are now reviewed and entered by supervi-
sors who have administrative oversight of this process. The supervisor considering a finding
of Agency Substantiated and the entry of the alleged perpetrator’s name on the Central
Registry must find sufficient 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 identified 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.
DHHS issued guidance to CFS teammates on practicing safe hygiene and social distancing to
continue to protect our workforce and providers while keeping children, families, and vulner-
able adults safe. Parenting time/visitation between parents and children and some monthly
contacts with ongoing clients was restricted to virtual platforms for several months during
the pandemic. In November 2020 “Guidance on Child, Family and Facility Contact during
the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency” was updated as follows:
“At this time, DHHS has determined face-to-face visits can occur; however, there
may be situations when a virtual visit is required based on the family circum-
stances, their risk level related to COVID-19, exposure to COVID-19 and current
Directed Health Measure (DHM). Some counties in Nebraska may be under DHMs,
visit covid.ne.gov to find the DHM that corresponds with the county the visit will
take place in.”
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 number and com-
plexity of sex trafficking reports, as well as exposure to sexualized content due to children
having more access to the Internet. There were some temporary changes put into place for
drug testing parents who are required to test per court order. Drug-testing was conducted
using sweat patches instead of urinalysis drug screening and alcohol testing was performed
using ankle monitors. As of June 26, 2020, DCFS resumed referrals for urine and oral swab
drug testing. Providers were instructed to continue to minimize in-person contact between
staff and individuals being tested.
Nebraska DCFS did conduct in-person investigations and assessments throughout the months
affected by COVID-19. Staff were provided with personal protective equipment (PPE),
including masks, face shields, gloves, hand sanitizer and cleaning products. CFS Specialists
were instructed to call the family from outside of the home and ask if anyone inside is
positive for COVID-19. If a family member has Covid, the worker does a quick walk-through
of the home and conducts the assessment from outside, if at all possible. Nebraska DCFS did
not conduct virtual CPS investigations. DCFS experienced a decrease in the average number
of days to complete an investigation. The average number of days for an Initial Assessment
(IA) to be completed and closed from March 2019 to February 2020 was 32.4 days. The
average number of days for IA to be closed from March 2020 to January 2021 was 29.2.
Nebraska started reporting sex trafficking data to NCANDS in 2018. As of August 2019,
Nebraska accepts all reports of trafficking without regard to the subject of the report for
assessment of child safety. Findings allow for differentiation between labor and sex traf-
ficking. However, the finding is not an accurate indication of who is a trafficking victim as
often the identity of the subject (or perpetrator) is not known and DCFS cannot substantiate
an unknown perpetrator or list them on the Central Registry. Most victims of sex trafficking
engage in “survival sex” and thus far there is not an exact mechanism for tracking these
cases.

Nebraska continues to increase our ability to identify and report on infants with prenatal sub-
stance exposure and DCFS continues to discuss improvement strategies with administration.
Currently only data based on children’s characteristics is included, but DCFS 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 identified. Nebraska continues to work with external partners, including
hospitals, to ensure that they are providing DCFS staff with the necessary information to
complete plans of safe care. Nebraska was recently 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 abuse/misuse
have a plan of safe care documented.
Fatalities
Nebraska reported two child fatalities resulting from child maltreatment in FFY 2020.
Nebraska continues to work closely with the state’s Child and Maternal Death Review Team
(CMDRT) to identify child fatalities that are the result of maltreatment, but are 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 official report
from CMDRT with final results are usually made available two to three years after the sub-
mission of the NCANDS Child and Agency files. Nebraska will resubmit the Agency File for
previous years when there is a difference in the count than was originally reported as a result
of the CMDRT final report. No policies were changed with regard to child fatality reviews.
The state CMDRT meets quarterly. In the past, the meetings were held in person, alternating
between Omaha and Lincoln. Due to a number of unforeseen circumstances, the meeting
scheduled for March 2020 was cancelled. Meetings were held virtually in June, September,
and December of 2020.
Perpetrators
Nebraska collects information on the perpetrators and enters the data into the child welfare
information system. Information includes the relationship of the perpetrator to the child and
demographics. Nebraska has a state statute that prohibits a perpetrator under 12 years of age
from being listed as a substantiated perpetrator. The maltreatment will be listed, but there is
no finding entered indicating if the maltreatment was substantiated or unfounded.
In FFY 2020, Nebraska saw a decrease in unique perpetrators. The decrease is likely due to a
combination of factors: more reports are going to alternative response than had been pre-
ciously; supervisors are reviewing all recommended findings; and the COVID-19 pandemic
has affected the number of reports received at the Hotline and assessments performed.
Nebraska reports noncaregiver perpetrators of sex trafficking to NCANDS. Nebraska revised

statutes to require DHHS to conduct in-person investigations of trafficking regardless of
the alleged perpetrator’s relationship to the allege victim. This legislation was effective in
August 2019. Nebraska reports “Other” relationships for perpetrators of sex trafficking which
includes nonrelatives and other people who are not professional caregivers.

Services
Nebraska refers children who are younger than three years old to the Early Development
Network (EDN). All children who are in a substantiated case will be referred to EDN as well
as any child identified in an accepted report who has a suspected delay in their development.
Nebraska has automated its referral system to its Early Childhood Development Network
to automatically notify the network of children younger than three who are victims of
maltreatment.
Nebraska believes that most of the services provided to families can be accomplished during
the assessment phase, between the report date and the final disposition. When a case is in
“Court Pending” status, that is, prior to the parents or caregivers entering pleas or the court
rendering a decision on the facts, services are nearly always provided to the family. Case
management, supervised visitation and family support services, and addiction services are
only a few of the services frequently utilized by families during the pendency of their court
cases. However, often, some or all of the services may be concluded prior to the disposition.
In many cases, these are the only services required to keep the child or victim safe. These
services are not included in the NCANDS Child File. Only the services that extend beyond
the disposition are included.
There was a decline in the number of children served in noncourt cases during the pandemic.
From March through December 2019 there was a monthly average of 1,308 children involved
in non-court cases; for the same period in 2020, the monthly average was 1,235 children.
There were adjustments to in-home services and those that were able to provide services vir-
tually during the lockdown did so pursuant to the “Guidance on Child, Family and Facility
Contact during the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency.”
■ Referrals for most services declined during this time; however, CFS worked to insure that
the most necessary services were not interrupted.

■ Some service contracts, were amended to add service codes and language to allow virtual
visits when in-person contact was not recommended.

■ There were benefits to services being virtual, especially in more rural and remote areas
of western Nebraska. Some families were able to receive services that were previously
limited due to lack of providers in their area. Travel time was also eliminated.
■ Most therapy and clinical supports have been continued through the pandemic and pro -
vided via telehealth.

■ The Medicaid managed care organizations (MCO) report that their providers experience
fewer cancellations and “no shows.” They have also found that the virtual option supports
customers’ schedules and eliminates travel issues.
■ Family Centered Treatment (FTC) is generally an all in-person service. However, the FCT
Foundation (the national office that licenses FCT providers) worked closely with providers
to help them transition to virtual platforms. The FCT Foundation provided training and
guidance documents for the providers to ensure quality services and child safety were
maintained in the virtual setting.
■ Most families transitioned well to virtual; few, if any, families stopped FCT due to the
pandemic.

The number of children taken into state custody decreased from 2,303 in calendar year 2019
to 2,084 for 2020. With the exception of July, the numbers were fewer than they had been
in 2019 for each of the Covid-affected months (March–December 2020). There also were
fewer removals in January 2021 than in 2020 and 2019. It is not possible to ascertain with
certainty if the decrease in children removed from their homes is due entirely to the effects
of the pandemic on child welfare. CFS is engaged in ongoing efforts to serve more children
in their homes with robust safety planning. Overall, the number of children in foster care in
Nebraska has increased. This may be due, in part, to court hearings being continued due to
the COVID-19 pandemic.
During the “lockdown” phase of Covid, monthly contact and parenting (visitation) time was
conducted over Zoom or other virtual platforms. Some parents were unwilling to participate
in video visits with CFS, but they did want to see their children for visitation. Workers would
visit with parents on the Zoom call before the visits began so that the parents met with their
workers and workers could check-in with parents and offer assistance on case plan progress
Public Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act (CARES) funds were utilized for
additional preventive services that families needed during the pandemic. Flexibilities granted
by the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) allowed DCFS to better support
families, meet immediate needs and adjust how services are provided. Specifically, federal
funds have been used to meet concrete needs such as food and housing; virtual home visit-
ing; and telehealth. Family Centered Treatment is a federally reimbursable service. Typically,
states are reimbursed at the rate of 50 percent. However, due to the pandemic, our federal
partners released guidance and raised the reimbursement to states. Nebraska was able to
receive 100 percent reimbursement for FCT.
Nebraska DHHS Division of Children and Family Services provides child welfare services
to the citizens of Nebraska. The statewide Child and Adult Abuse and Neglect Hotline is
centralized in Omaha, but serves the entire state. Initial Assessment (investigation) is con-
ducted by State of Nebraska Child and Family Services Specialists (CFS Specialists) and case
management is likewise provided by CFS Specialists in four of the five service areas. In the
Eastern Service Area, case management is privatized. St. Francis Ministries is the contractor
performing case management duties in the ESA.

Nevada
Contact Alexia Benshoof Phone 775–687–9013
Title Management Analyst IV Email [email protected]
Address Nevada Division of Child and Family Services

Department of Health and Human Services
4126 Technology Way, 2nd Floor
Carson City, NV 89706
General
Nevada child welfare agencies use a single statewide child welfare information system
known as UNITY—Unified Nevada Information Technology for Youth. UNITY was previ-
ously federally designated as a SACWIS, a Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information
System, but is now governed by federal Comprehensive Child Welfare Information System
(CCWIS) regulations.
Child Protective Services (CPS) provided by child welfare agencies in Nevada follow the
Nevada child welfare safety model known as 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 iden-
tification of present and impending danger, assessment of how deficient caregiver protective
capacities contribute to the existence of safety threats and safety planning/management ser-
vices, assessment of motivational 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 unified 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 have
been determined by the agency as likely to benefit from voluntary early intervention through
assessment of their unique strengths, risks, and individual needs, rather than the more intru-
sive approach of investigation. Nevada has recently modified the DR program to better meet
the needs of the child welfare agencies and the communities in which the agencies operate.
Each child welfare agency now provides DR services differently through their agency.
CCDFS modified its DR program to a Community Collaborative Program designed to serve
as a neighborhood-based family support system. The agency conducts an initial assessment
of a report that has been received through its intake hotline. Based on the assessment, the
agency will either continue to work with the family or request the Community Collaborative
to continue to work with the family based on the families’ needs. WCHSA established
an agency-based DR program. The agency serves screened-in maltreatment reports and
utilizes internal staff to conduct the assessment and provide services to the family. DCFS
Rural Region transitioned DR from a program that responds to screened-in CPS reports to a
program that serves families in the context of a more traditional prevention model. DR will
serve families brought to the agency’s attention through CPS intake that do not meet criteria
for a screened-in maltreatment report but do meet agency criteria that indicate the family is
at risk for future involvement with the CPS system and is in need of services to reduce the
likelihood of future involvement with the public child welfare system. Additionally, DCFS

Nevada (continued)
Rural Region also envisions future development of a referral process for families to receive
voluntary services following CPS case closure.
Reports
In Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2020, there was a decrease 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 insufficient 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 and changed the response times from
what they were previously.
Report response times may be one of the following: Priority 1: respond within 6 hours when
the identified danger is urgent or of emergency status, there is present danger, and safety
factors are identified; this response type requires a face-to-face contact by CPS. Priority
2: respond within 24 hours with any maltreatment of impending danger and safety factors
identified including child fatality; this response type requires a face-to-face contact by CPS
or may involve collateral contact by telephone or case review. Priority 3: respond within 72
hours when maltreatment is indicated, but no safety factors are identified; 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.
Referrals that do not rise to the level of an investigation may be referred to DR according
to agency practice previously described. The DR program has a required response time of
Priority 3: respond within 72 hours (three business days). This variance in response time
affects Nevada’s average report response time in NCANDS reporting
Children
In FFY 2020, there was a decrease in the number of children reported as possible abuse
or neglect victims as compared to the previous year. Further, the number of substantiated
victims only decreased slightly compared to the previous year. Nevada is not able to collect
and report sex trafficking and substance exposed infant data, although policy, procedural,
and technical planning is underway to address these items.
Fatalities
Fatalities identified in the statewide 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 for FFY 2020 compared with FFY 2019.
Nevada utilizes a variety of sources when compiling reports and data about child fatalities
resulting from maltreatment. Any instance of a child suffering a fatality or near fatality, who
Nevada (continued)
previously 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 (17
years or younger). The purpose of the Nevada CDR process is public awareness and preven-
tion, enabling many agencies and jurisdictions to work together to gain a better understand-
ing of child deaths.
Perpetrators
All perpetrator data are reported in accordance with instructions outlined in the NCANDS
Child File mapping forms.
Services
Many of the services provided are handled through outside providers. Information on
services received by families is reported through various programs. Services provided in
conjunction with the new safety model are documented in the system, but these data are not
always readily reportable. The Child File contains some of the services from the statewide
child welfare information system (UNITY), and the state is investigating steps to bring more
of that information into the NCANDS report.
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 substanti-
ated 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 defines
“involved” to include children that are identified as: having been abused or neglected; having
a positive drug screen at birth; or found in need of services.

New Hampshire
Contact Lorraine Ellis Phone 603–271–0837
Title Business Systems Analyst Email [email protected]

Division for Children, Youth and Families
Address New Hampshire Department of Human Services

129 Pleasant Street
Concord, NH 03301
General
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
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, New Hampshire’s governor issued a stay-at-home
order in mid-March 2020. Our Intake unit and after-hours referral contractor were able to
transition very quickly remote work, so Intake continued to be available 24/7. There were no
staffing changes as a result of the pandemic or stay-at-home order.
With schools closed, referrals decreased significantly for several months, but began to come
back toward normal during the summer of 2020. However, it was not until December 2020 that
the number of screen-ins matched previous years for the same month.
By the end of FFY 2020, the state was beginning to observe an increase of in the number of
referrals for educational neglect in the wake of the pandemic. This has continued into FFY
2021. To screen in those referrals, intake staff first inquire about the efforts that the school has
made to engage the family, provide remote learning support, etc. If efforts were made, but the
student is still not attending school adequately, the report will be screened in. As a new practice
this year, if any call was screened out, intake staff recommend the caller try to connect the
family with their local Family Resource Center for support.
Children
From mid-March to mid-July 2020, New Hampshire conducted face-to-face interviews for
assessments only for those referrals deemed to be high risk. Other interviews were conducted
via Zoom conferencing. After appropriate safety protocols were established, face-to-face
interviews resumed for all risk levels. Both response time and time to disposition decreased
during FFY 2020, due to several factors:
■ The decrease in referrals due to the pandemic allowed staff to start and complete assess-
ments more quickly.

■ New Hampshire implemented a statewide model of daily case management/supervision
meetings that focus on each worker’s priorities for the day, and guarantees 2 hours of
“protected time” every day, in which workers can focus on completing those priorities
without interruption.
■ The state has been able to continue increasing the child protection work force through
steady hiring and training.
As a result of these factors, New Hampshire experienced an increase in assessments closed

during FFY 2020, and reported in the NCANDS Child File.

New Hampshire (continued)
By policy, New Hampshire interviews all children in a household if any children are alleged
to be maltreated. Alleged victims, including victims of sex trafficking, must be under the age
of 18 in order for a report to be screened in.
New Hampshire is now able to collect data regarding plans of safe care and service referrals
for substance-exposed infants. However, due to the pandemic, we have not had developer
resources to modify the NCANDS extract to report that data. There have been no policy or
procedure changes regarding the referral of infants with prenatal substance exposure.
Fatalities
New Hampshire has a Child Fatality Committee consisting of 31 members representing
government agencies (Attorney General; Judicial Branch; Board of Pharmacy; Division for
Children, Youth and Families; Department of Safety; State Medical Examiner; Fire Marshall;
Behavioral Health; Public Health; Drug and Alcohol Services); Law Enforcement (State and
Local); Community Mental Health Services; Granite State Children’s Alliance; NH Coalition
Against Domestic and Sexual Violence; and Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center.
In addition, 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 Office 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. Each of
these review boards did not meet for a short period of time after the stay-at-home order was
issued. However, they all transitioned to virtual meetings and resumed their work.
Perpetrators
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. This is true for all maltreatment types,
including sex trafficking.
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.
Services
New Hampshire did not experience any significant interruption in services or child removals
due to the pandemic. foster care providers, as well as residential providers initially began
having parent-child visits via Zoom, but as safety protocols were established, moved to
in-person. Other providers, including mental health and in-home supports initially used
virtual visits, but have also moved back to in-home and in-person contact as safety allows.
New Hampshire (continued)
Our congregate care providers have had periods of time when they could not accept new
placements due positive Covid tests in the facility, and the need to quarantine. Providers
often request a child to be tested before being accepted. The State has coordinated all test-
ing through one staff person, to streamline that effort. To further minimize impact on child
services, the state has met regularly with the Department of Education to support remote
learning for students, and with residential providers to work through pandemic-related issues.
The NCANDS category of “Other” services includes the state category of “ISO In-Home,”
an Individual Service Option that provides comprehensive services for children/youth with
significant challenges, which may be medical, physical, behavioral or psychological. The
service therefore fits into several different service categories, but not precisely into any one
category.
New Hampshire is only able to report services that were paid for directly by the child protec-
tion agency. Any services that were paid for by Medicaid or the family’s own health insur-
ance are not reported for counseling services, health-related and home health services, and
substance abuse services. New Hampshire does not provide or collect data on the following
services, as defined by NCANDS:
■ Case management services
■ Employment services
■ Family planning services
■ Home based services
■ Information and referral services
■ Housing services
■ Legal services
■ Respite care services

New Jersey
Contact Nicole Ruiz Phone 609–888–7336

Office of Research, Evaluation and Reporting
Address New Jersey Department of Children and Families

50 East State Street
Trenton, NJ 08625
General
Since the implementation of the Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System
(SACWIS), 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.
Reports
The state 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 utilize a differential response protocol; all allegations of child abuse/neglect meeting
statutory criteria for investigation are screened-in for a response. The state system allows for
linking multiple CPS reports to a single investigation. The state system also allows for docu-
menting the time and date the initial face-to-face contact was made to begin the investiga-
tion. Structured Decision-Making assessment tools, including Safety and Risk Assessments,
are incorporated within the Investigation screens in SACWIS. These tools are required to be
completed in the system prior to documenting and approving the investigation disposition.
For FFY 2020, the state data shows a decrease in both the number of unique reports and the
number of substantiated victims when compared to FFY 2019. This decrease in the substantia-
tion rate is consistent with the trend of decreased substantiated victimization, observed across
the past several years. In addition, New Jersey’s child welfare system—as well as others across
the country—was significantly impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, resulting in:
■ A reduction in number of referrals received. In March 2020, New Jersey began to see a
decrease in call volume and by April, call volume had decreased by approximately 50
percent. In May 2020, volume started to increase again and as of September 2020, call
volume was 25 percent less than the volume observed in September 2019.
■ From mid-March 2020 thru early July 2020, staffing patterns for the State Central
Registry and the Child Abuse Hotline were reduced onsite. After July 2020, staffing
patterns returned to full capacity.
■ Protocols related to assignment of response times were modified in March 2020 to maxi-
mize the Department’s limited supply of PPE. A tier of priorities was temporarily estab-
lished, to govern the sequence in which reports should be addressed. Priority 1 intakes
addressed immediate concerns for children who sustained serious injuries and their safety
was at immediate risk. These also contained allegations around fatalities as well as sexual
abuse. Priority 2 intakes addressed immediate concerns, but where the alleged perpetra-
tor did not have access to the child. Priority 3 intakes addressed concerns that involved
a 24-hour response and addressed neglect around basic needs. Screening protocols were
not modified. All reports of abuse and neglect continued to be screened in based on New
Jersey’s statutory requirements.

New Jersey (continued)
■ As a result of an agreement between the Communication Workers of America and the
State of New Jersey, union members were furloughed for a period of days between June
and July 2020. DCF did not enact layoffs and it continues to maintain staffing levels com-
mensurate with model caseload standards.
Children
Children with allegations of maltreatment are designated as alleged victims and are included
in the Child File. The NCANDS category of neglect includes medical neglect. The state
SACWIS allows for reporting more than one race for a child. Race, Hispanic/Latino origin,
and ethnicity are each collected in separate fields.
New Jersey investigates allegations of sexual exploitation for alleged victims under the age of
18; in addition, New Jersey only investigates child abuse and neglect allegations of sex traf-
ficking in which the alleged perpetrator is in a caretaking role. For FFY 2020, there were 37
reports of sexual exploitation investigated. It should be noted this number does not represent
the children that may be subjected to human trafficking by a noncaretaker—these children
do receive services; however, they are not included in the CPS report count.
In 2017, in response to the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act of 2016 (CARA),
New Jersey amended its regulations and further modified the allegation-based system to cap-
ture allegations of substance affected newborns. In 2018, a pilot program was developed to
assess and engage the families identified as meeting the requirements, and plans of safe care
training and implementation began to rollout statewide. For FFY 2020, New Jersey identified
2,005 substance exposed newborns; 1,788 (89 percent) had a Plan of Safe Care and 1,511 (75
percent) were referred to appropriate services. New Jersey successfully updated SACWIS in
November 2020 and will be able to partially report the number of plans of safe care created,
and the number referred to appropriate services in the FFY 2021 Child File.
As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic:

■ New Jersey modified procedures related to conducting investigations. DCP&P Covid
Response Teams were created to complete investigations, home visits and other critical
field responses. Field responses were triaged and responses to both Priority 1 and 2 intakes
were to be responded to in-person.
■ Investigation start date and times were not modified. New Jersey continued to complete
investigations face-to-face based on priority levels. In some situations, allowances were

made for responses to occur via remote technology when the perpetrator did not have
immediate access to the child. On these occasions, staff conducted virtual investigations
through video conferencing. New Jersey did not amend any policy or procedure regarding
the referral of substance exposed infants as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. These
referrals followed the screening protocols that were modified in March 2020 and were
placed within one of the three priority levels and responded to accordingly.
■ Based on our review of the data, the time elapsed between the start of the investigation to
determination does not appear to have been impacted by COVID-19.

Fatalities
Child fatalities are reported to the New Jersey Department of Children and Families by many
different sources including law enforcement agencies, medical personnel, family members,
schools, offices of medical examiners and, occasionally child death review teams. The CP&P
Assistant Commissioner makes a determination as to whether the child fatality happened as a
result of child maltreatment. The Office of Quality manages a critical incident review process
that utilizes safety science approaches, including human factors debriefing.
The state NCANDS liaison consults with the DCF Office of Quality and the Child Protection
and Permanency (CP&P) Assistant Commissioner to ensure that all child maltreatment
fatalities are reported in the state NCANDS files. The state SACWIS is the primary source
of reporting child fatalities in the NCANDS Child File. The data is collected and recorded by
Investigators and the person management screens are updated in the SACWIS. Other child
maltreatment fatalities not reported in the Child File due to data anomalies, but which are
designated child maltreatment fatalities by the DCF Office of Quality under the Child Abuse
Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA), are reported in the NCANDS Agency File. New
Jersey has maintained a stable annual child fatality rate for the last nine years. Fluctuations
in the number of fatalities from year-to-year are likely due to random case-level variation
and are monitored closely. New Jersey did not change any policies related to the child fatality
reviews as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. The reviews are still occurring, but have
transitioned to a virtual convening.
Perpetrators
In New Jersey, perpetrators are defined as persons responsible for a child’s welfare who have
engaged in the abuse or neglect of that child. For sex trafficking, New Jersey only investi-
gates child abuse and neglect allegations in which the alleged perpetrator is in a caretaking
role, including categories such as bus driver/aide, child in foster/adoptive home, child in other
licensed care, non-childcare staff, and Other.
Services
New Jersey contracts for all direct services, with the exception of case management services,
which are provided by the DCP&P workers. The state SACWIS reports those services
specifically designated as family preservation services, family support services, and foster
care services as postinvestigation services in the Child File.
The Child Abuse and Neglect State Grant is one funding source for the Child Protection
and Substance Abuse Initiative (CPSAI). We can say that with state Grant funding, CPSAI
served 1,252 individuals. The Social Service Block Grant served 182,835 children with case
management services. This number is unduplicated not reported to NCANDS but includes
children who may have had a CPS report during the fiscal year.
The state’s Community-Based Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect Grant (CBCAP)
funded seven of New Jersey’s 57 Family Success Centers (FSC), the New Jersey Child
Assault Prevention Program (NJCAP) and the Prevent Child Abuse New Jersey Program
(PCANJ). In addition, funding was provided to the Safe Haven and Early Childhood
Improving Outcomes Programs.

The state can also report the number of children eligible for a referral to Early Intervention
Services and the number of children referred in FFY 2020. Compliance with this federal
requirement is closely monitored by CP&P and New Jersey’s referral rate for FFY 2020
is more than 80 percent. Data regarding services to children with behavioral health
and substance use disorder diagnoses, and children with intellectual and developmental
disabilities through the New Jersey Children’s System of Care is available on the DCF
website and the NJ Child Welfare Data Hub (www.njchilddata.rutgers.edu).
As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, service provision was modified:

■ On March 24, 2020, DCF released guidance relaxing usual operating requirements to
permit flexibility that preserves quality of service for clients while promoting the ability
of clients and service providers to adhere to necessary social distancing practices. Most
DCF-contracted in-home and community-based services transitioned from in-person to
remote service delivery. Licensed clinicians and providers of physical and behavioral
health care were expected to adhere to applicable laws and regulations in provision of
telehealth services.
■ In the summer of 2020, New Jersey lifted its stay-at-home order and relaxed restrictions
put into place statewide to mitigate the spread of COVID-19. In accordance with this
reopening, CP&P resumed typical operations including in-person fieldwork in July 2020.
At the same time, select DCF-contracted providers were required to resume in-person
delivery of services, when safe and possible, using a hybrid of in-person and remote
services. DCF released specific guidance to contracted parent-child visitation providers
requiring transition of visits from remote to in-person while ensuring visit safety and the
health and well-being of visit participants.
■ In December 2020, updated guidance was released for contracted in-home and commu-
nity-based programs related to the continuity of services during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Select providers of services to families at risk of disruption, and separated families and
parent-child visitation providers were required to maintain in-person delivery of service.
Providers of other DCF in-home and community-based services were expected to make
every effort to maintain in-person service delivery, incorporating face-to-face work but
also allowing continued use of remote service delivery. DCF surveyed providers at several
points throughout 2020, and the majority of providers reported being able to maintain
services to families by using technology creatively, offering flexible hours and adjusting
service delivery to meet family’s needs.
■ DCF held a statewide webinar for providers, in conjunction with the NJ Office of
Emergency Management, to instruct providers as to how to submit claims to FEMA for

reimbursement of emergency expenditures. DCF also issued nearly $8.2 million in small
business grants to providers of Mobile Response and Stabilization Services, and over
$9 million to congregate care providers to support continuity of operations during the
pandemic.
■ As in each of the previous years, New Jersey observed a decline in the volume of children
separated from families as a child welfare intervention. DCF is examining the extent to
which the decline observed in 2020 was related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

New Mexico
Contact Doreen Chavez Phone 505–412–9868
Title SACWIS/AFCARS/NCANDS/FACTS Program Email [email protected]

Manager
Office of Performance and Accountability
Address New Mexico 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 2020 NCANDS submission. At this time, 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 has been implemented with a limited and target scope for reports of
educational neglect that are likely related to COVID-19 and distance learning challenges. We
will have more data on this program for FFY 2021’s submission.
Reports
The number of screened-in referrals in FFY 2020 increased from New Mexico’s FFY 2019
NCANDS submission. This slight increase may be attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic
and due to the stay-at-home order and educational settings being closed. The agency has not
made any significant 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 definition for the investigation start date is defined as the caseworker making
face-to-face contact with each alleged victim identified in the report, rather than the individual
child referenced in the 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 does not currently report an incident date. New Mexico will be modifying the state’s
data collection system to capture incident information by next reporting period.
Children
The total numbers of both unique children and unique child victims in FFY 2020 decreased
from New Mexico’s FFY 2019 NCANDS submission. This decrease may be attributed to the
COVID-19 pandemic due to the stay-at-home order and educational settings being closed.
New Mexico investiga-tion procedures do include face-to-face assessment of all children
living in the household, regardless of whether they are identified as an alleged victim in the
initial report.
The state’s reporting of drug and alcohol abuse as a child risk factor does have significant
limitations within our current reporting system. New Mexico plans to address these
limitations with the imple-mentation of a CCWIS system and hopes that reporting will be
improved for future submissions. The state does not have the capacity to report sex
trafficking as an allegation type at this time. As New Mexico transitions to a CCWIS, this
change will be fully implemented and reporting will likely begin with the FFY 2021
NCANDS submission.

New Mexico (continued)
For FFY 2020 we received four plans of safe care through the portal (907 total) as we piloted
the plans of safe care with hospitals who were trained to begin collecting this data in an
external system in FFY 2020. Full integration with the state SACWIS is in process, but has
not been completed.
Due to the timing of the online portal development for plans of safe care, the state is unable
to fully report relevant data elements in the FFY 2020 NCANDS submission. As the portal is
managed by an external contractor, hospitals have to sign a Business Associate Agreement
to enter plans into the portal. As a result, it has taken an extensive amount of time to get
them enrolled. The state hopes to report these data in the FFY 2021 submission.
Fatalities
New Mexico reported the same number of fatalities in FFY 2020 as in FFY 2019. Percent
differences in fatalities from year to year are highly susceptible to broad fluctuation due to
the overall low numbers of applicable fatalities occurring in the population. 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 investiga
tion can also create year-over-year variation.
New Mexico identifies applicable child fatalities for inclusion in the Agency File by compar
ing homicides in the Child File with homicides identified by the state Office of the Medical
Investigator (OMI). Any child victims who do not already appear in the Child File are
reviewed to determine the identity and relationship of the perpetrator. Only children known
to have died due to maltreatment by a parent or primary caregiver, not already included in the
Child File, are then included in the 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, supervision,
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 Certification 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)
Services
Postinvestigation services are reported for any child or family involved in a child welfare
agency report that has an identified 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 fields 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 notifies 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, specifically 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 York
Contact Hui-Shien Tsao, Ph.D. Phone 518–474–6791
Title Research Scientist Email [email protected]

Bureau of Research, Evaluation and Performance
Analytics
Strategic Planning and Policy Development
Address New York State Office of Children and Family Services

52 Washington St, Room 323 North
Rensselaer, NY 12144
General
The State currently has 15 local districts of social services using the alternative response,
known as Family Assessment Response (FAR). Data from both traditional Child Protective
Services path and FAR path are reported in NCANDS.
Reports
New York State does not collect information about calls not registered as reports. The state
has seen a reduction of calls and registered reports. Additional COVID-19 questions related
to educational neglect were added, but these questions did not change the components neces-
sary for registering reports. The New York State Statewide Central Register (SCR) continued
to operate during the pandemic, including during the period of lockdown. Investigations
must start within 24 hours of receipt of the report. Neither investigations nor assessments
were impacted by the pandemic. Local districts did experience staff reductions due to the
pandemic when staff became ill.
Children
New York’s data shows a high percentage of children reported for “other” maltreatment
type. New York has a “parent drug/alcohol use” allegation that does not map to any of the
predefined NCANDS maltreatment types and is therefore coded as “other.” State statute and
policy allow acceptance and investigation/assessment of child protective reports concerning
certain youth over the age of 21.
Not all children reported in the Child File have AFCARS IDs because the State uses differ-
ent child identifiers (ID) 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 ID (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 ID.
Ideally a child should have a single CPS case ID that spans across all CPS reports. However,
in some instances a child is assigned a new CPS case ID when a new report is received,
resulting in some children having more than one ID. New York is exploring ways to detect
and reduce the circumstances that lead to multiple CPS IDs per child.
In NCANDS FFY 2020 reporting, NY is providing information on “child alcohol and drug
abuse” risk factors for the first time. In NYS accepted allegations include “child drug or
alcohol abuse” and “parent drug or alcohol abuse”. If a child is older than 1 year and named
as an alleged victim of an allegation of child drug or alcohol abuse, the child is identified
in the NCANDS file 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 identified
in NCANDS as having a drug or alcohol risk.

New York (continued)
Information on plans of safe care and service referral are being reported for the first time
in FFY 2020. For every child under age one named as an alleged victim of parent drug or
alcohol abuse, where one or more additional risk factors are checked (positive tox, with-
drawal, Fetal Alcohol Spectrum), NYS requires that information on plans of safe care and
service referral be completed-- regardless of reporter type. In NYS, many reporters identify
by professional qualification (e.g., social worker) rather than setting (e.g., medical person-
nel). As a result, while NYS maintains information on the plan of safe care and referral for
all children identified in the NCANDS file as substance exposed, the plan of safe care and
referral numbers reported in the NCANDS file are limited to those cases in which the report
source identified as a medical personnel, thereby under reporting the number of children in
each category. Reporting of sex trafficking was provided for the entire FFY 2020. No policies
or procedures changed regarding the referral of infants with prenatal substance exposure dur-
ing the pandemic. Data indicates the percentage of timely determinations increased during
this time.
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.
State practice allows for multiple reports of child fatalities for the same child and deaths
that occurred in previous years to be reported to SCR. These fatalities are then investigated
and dispositions made. This practice allows for reporting of fatalities reported in previous
NCANDS files to be reported again. After further review of reporting instruction and
clarification with NCANDS technical assistance, New York revised how it reports fatalities
within NCANDS for FFY 2020. For FFY 2020, NCANDS fatality reporting included all
fatalities regardless the date of death, as long as the fatality report investigation ended during
FFY 2020 and the fatality had not been reported in a prior NCANDS submission. As a result,
the number of fatalities reported in the NCANDS submissions increased from 69 in FFY
2019 to 105 in FFY 2020.
No changes were made to polices related to child fatality reviews during the pandemic. New
York currently has a state Child Fatality review team, and they were able to conduct opera-
tions during the pandemic, with no impact to the state’s oversight and reporting roles.
In New York a very low percent of perpetrators is mapped to “other” perpetrator relationship.
The subject of the report (perpetrators) needs to be a person legally responsible. A person
legally responsible includes a parent and there is no age limitation for parents. Persons legally
responsible would be persons 18 years of age or older found in the same home and legally
responsible for the child at the relevant time and they either caused the harm (or imminent
risk of harm) to the child or allowed the harm to occur. Noncaregivers are not included as
perpetrators of sex trafficking.

New York (continued)
Services
The State is not able to report the NCANDS services fields currently. Title XX funds are
not used for providing child preventive services in this State. In home services continued
during the pandemic, with most casework contact being completed through virtual visits
unless child safety was an issue. Data indicates that few children were removed during the
pandemic. There has been a delay in reimbursement for some preventive services due to the
COVID-19 pandemic.
The federal Cares Act has provided additional funding which has been beneficial to many
local programs, especially in securing PPE. Local departments of social services provide all
services, and many of those services are contracted services with various preventive agency
providers. NYS does provide some funding for primary prevention programs.

North Carolina
Contact Joy Smith Phone 919-527-6433
Title Data Analyst Email [email protected]
Address NC Division of Social Services–Performance Mgmt Section

820 S. Boylan Avenue, 2415 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-2401

North Dakota
Contact Jennifer Grabar Phone 701–328–1863
Title Assistant Child Protection Services Administrator Email [email protected]

Children and Family Services
Address North Dakota Department of Human Services

600 East Boulevard Avenue
Bismarck, ND 58505
General
On March 15, 2020 schools closed in North Dakota in response to the COVID-19 virus. In
April 2020, North Dakota received 40 percent less reports than it had in April 2019. Teachers
and education personnel accounted for nearly 25 percent of reports received in FFY 2019.
Child abuse and neglect likely did not decrease rather their contacts with mandated reporters
was limited thus reports reduced. It was not only teachers that were not seeing children, but
it was physicians, dentists, childcare providers, and therapists. Social distancing became
important to protect health, however it brought an increase for risks associated to isolation,
increasing parental stress, impacting mental wellbeing and overall parenting. Child welfare
has not only experienced a reduction in reports, assessments, victims, and perpetrators in
addition the field had new challenges surrounding protective personal equipment, COVID-19
screening, limited access to children and families due to quarantines, family apprehension to
allow and opposition to contact with those outside their family unit. This challenge resulted
in delays in timely assessment initiation.
Statewide implementation of Child Protection Services Redesign utilizing the Theory of

Constraints occurred in conjunction with the statewide rollout of the new Safety Framework
Practice Model. The CPS Redesign had three primary goals, 1) reduce the time it takes to
complete a CPS assessment, 2) conduct a face-to-face contact with the identified victim
no later than 3 days from the report received date and 3) quality and thorough assessments
completed consistently. Strategies of the CPS Redesign include robust, full kit intakes
completed by a specialized statewide team, comprehensive safety assessments with a consis-
tent understanding of safe vs unsafe children that lead to uniform decisions across the state,
quality supervision and continual examination of work in process to identify constraints
and allow protected time for workers, quality safety determinations that lead to sustainable
safety plans, and case plans that focus on enhancing protective capacities and reducing safety
threats. The Safety Framework Practice Model was implemented statewide in December
2020. ND implemented the Central Intake Hotline for the reporting of suspected child abuse
and neglect in January 2021. The redesigned CPS process of a shorted assessment timeline
may impact NCANDS data during this reporting period, although a greater impact of these
practice changes is expected for FFY 2021.
North Dakota implemented a CPS alternative response option exclusive to substance

exposed newborns (defined in state law as infants age 28 days or less) in November 2017 in
response to the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act amendments to CAPTA. This
alternative response option includes development and monitoring of a plan of safe care for
each substance exposed newborn and each caregiver for the newborn, needs assessment and
the absence of a “finding” of child abuse or neglect. The alternative response is voluntary
and prenatal substance exposure remains in state law as a form of neglect. Caregivers who
decline participation in alternative response receive a standard CPS assessment response.

North Dakota (continued)
Data elements for alternative response have been included in the state’s data system but are
not yet mapped to NCANDS Child File reporting. There were 271 completed assessments
regarding reports of prenatally substance exposed newborns; 58 of the 271 were alternative
response assessments. Although many other assessments began as alternative response, they
were reverted during the assessment process for various reasons, these were then completed
as full standard assessments with an assessment determination. the primary reasons for an
assessment revert was parental refusal to cooperate with the plan of safe care and violation of
the plan of safe care.
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 does not report the number of screened-out reports. Under North Dakota law,
all reports of suspected child abuse and neglect must be accepted. North Dakota has adopted
an administrative assessment process to correctly triage reports received. Data regarding
the number of children included in reports that are administratively assessed is not col-
lected. An administrative assessment is defined as: The process of documenting reports of
suspected child abuse or neglect that do not meet the criteria for a Child Protection Services
Assessment. Under this definition, reports can be administratively assessed when the con-
cerns in the report clearly fall outside of the state child protection law. Such circumstances
include:
■ The report does not contain a credible reason for suspecting the child has been abused or
neglected.
■ The report does not contain sufficient information to identify or locate the child.
■ 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
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 “services required”
(substantiation) in the absence of a live birth.
Assessments that are in progress when information indicates the report falls outside of the
child abuse and neglect law may be terminated in progress. Reports may also be referred to
another jurisdiction when the children of the report are not physically present in the county
receiving the report (these reports are referred to another jurisdiction (county, 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 office. Reports concerning sexual abuse or
physical abuse by someone who is not a person responsible for the child’s welfare (noncare-
giver) are referred to law enforcement. The number of administrative assessments or referrals
in FFY 2020 is 9,384. This total breaks down to 4,490 administrative assessments; 1,868
administrative referrals; 2,909 terminated in progress; and 117 pregnant woman assessments.
There were 3,135 completed full assessments.
Data mapping and calculating the response time, both in the Agency File and in the Child
File, has proved to be quite challenging as there is a significant divergence between the
state’s administrative rule and policies and the definitions required for NCANDS reporting.
In the North Dakota data system, there is only a single code allowed to indicate initiation
of an assessment. State administrative rule allows initiation of an assessment to be done by
completing a check for records of past involvement, by contact with the subject of a report,
or with a collateral contact. In contradiction to the federal definition, the administrative rule
does not list contact with a victim as an initiation activity. When a subsequent contact is
made with a victim, there is not a separate code within the data system to indicate this action
as initiation. Therefore, many assessments initiated under the state administrative rule do not
meet the initiation definition in the Child File or Agency File.
Another complicating factor is that system codes for contacts with children are often
indicated as worker/child or worker/family, which may or may not indicate contact with a
victim. This is due to multiple programs using case activity codes, but does not allow specific
NCANDS mapping for victim contacts. Additionally, the initial face-to-face contact with a
victim for purposes of a safety assessment has been allowed, by state policy, to be conducted
by specific professional partners who have authority to provide immediate protection for the
child (law enforcement, medical personnel, juvenile court staff, or military family advocacy
staff) in addition to a child welfare worker. Given this policy, face-to-face contact by a part-
ner may occur before the report received date/time. For example: Law enforcement is called
to a home in the evening for a welfare check and determines that the children are not in
immediate danger, so does not remove, but does follow up with a written report the following
day. Face-to-face contact with the victim has occurred by someone with authority to protect
the child, but occurs prior to the report date/time, by someone other than the child welfare
worker, but does not count under the definitions in the Child File or Agency File. State policy
also specified that the response time may vary by the category of the report. Response times
may vary from 24 hours before or after a report for the most serious category to three days
before or after a report for moderate risk reports, to as much as 14 days before or after the
report for low-risk reports. Given this possible variation, these timeframes also do not meet
the NCANDS definitions. The described policies above did change with the adoption of the
Safety Framework Practice Model, effective December 2020, which states 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
3 days. When response time is calculated according to state policy and administrative rule
during FFY 2020, the response time is 246.5 hours.
Because 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 may be 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. Additionally, intake
and report analysis functions are the responsibility of each county office. There are currently
12 county FTEs and 2 state FTEs conducting central intake duties. 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.
Directors reported a total of 162 employees, including supervisors, responsible for intake and
assessment. These were then reported as a corresponding portion of an FTE, resulting in a
total of 116.4 FTEs. Of these approximately 116.4 FTEs, 20.8 were responsible for CPS intake
functions, 79.6 were responsible for CPS assessment functions, and 16 were responsible for
supervision functions. The second portion of the survey was forwarded to the workers. The
results of the worker demographic portion of the report are included in the state’s CAPTA
report.
Children
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 fields have been added to the child welfare data management system to capture the
maltreatment type of sex trafficking as well as sex trafficking as a child risk factor. This
data has not yet been mapped for NCANDS reporting. The state hopes to have the mapping
completed in FFY 2021. There were 4 children with an identified maltreatment type of sex
trafficking in FFY 2020 and 19 children with an identified child risk factor for sex traffick-
ing. An identified child risk factor indicates that trafficking may have occurred by someone
who is not a “person responsible for a child’s welfare” under state law.
According to state law a substance exposed newborn means an infant younger than 28 days
old at the time of the initial report of child abuse or neglect and who is identified 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. In June 2018, fields were added to the child
welfare data management system to enable the entry for plans of safe care as well referrals
to CARA related services for the substance exposed newborn and the affected caregiver(s).
Plans of safe care were developed to have both required and optional elements. Required
elements include providing information regarding safe sleep and Period of Purple Crying as
well as assuring adequate medical care, and safe housing. This data has not yet been mapped
for NCANDS reporting. The state hopes to have the mapping completed in FFY 2021. There
were 274 substance exposed newborns identified during this reporting period. Of the 274
identified substance exposed newborns, 232 of them had a plan of safe care; all 274 of these
substance exposed newborns and their affected caregivers received some degree of appropri-
ate services.
Fatalities
All fatalities were reported in the Child File. The North Dakota Department of Human
Services, Children and Family Services Division 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 Assistant Administrator of Child Protection Services serves as the Presiding
Officer of the Child Fatality Review Panel. This dual role provides for close coordination
between these two processes and aides in the identification 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 Vital
Records Division to receive death certificates for all children, ages 0–18 years, who receive a
death certificate issued in the state. These death certificates 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 the
Department of Human Services, 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 certificate as
accident, homicide, suicide or undetermined. Any child for whom the manner of death is
listed on the death certificate as natural, but whose death is identified 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 identified in the record as having involvement with
the child in the recent period prior to death, including law enforcement, medical facilities,
CPS, the County Coroner and the State Medical Examiner’s Office for each death. Under
North Dakota law, any hospital, physician, medical professional, medical facility, mental
health professional, 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 certificate of live birth and wo has died. Additionally, the State Medical
Examiner’s Office 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 confident that all deaths in the state from all causes are identified,
reviewed, and reported.
Perpetrators
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. Institutional Child Protection Services are addressed in a separate section
of the state statute and 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 residential child care facility, a treatment or care center for individuals with intellectual
disabilities, a public or private residential educational facility, a maternity home, or any
residential facility owned or managed by the state or a political subdivision of the state. An
individual working as facility staff is not held culpable within Institutional Child Protection
Services, rather, the facility itself is considered to be a subject (perpetrator) of the report.
Assessments of institutional child abuse or neglect are assessed at the state level, by regional
staff, rather than at the county level as are CPS reports that are non-institutional. All reports
of institutional child abuse and neglect are reviewed by a multidisciplinary State Child
Protection Team on 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. There were 105 reports of institutional child abuse or neglect in
FFY 2020, making up 31 completed full assessments. Of these 31 assessments, 21 had a find-
ing of not indicated and 10 had a finding of indicated. There were 54 assessments Terminated
in Progress and 20 reports were administratively assessed/administratively referred. No
reports remained open at the time of this report.
Services
The methods for Agency File 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 396. The number of children
actually referred is 381. Of the 15 children eligible and not referred, four children moved out
of state or whereabouts were unknown, three children were deceased, two children had been
previously referred and were receiving IDEA services, and one child turned three before
a referral could be made. The reason for non-referral for the remaining children was not
available.
The state has limitations when reporting reunification services. Case management services
provided by county agencies are dependent upon correct data entry connecting the service
with the CPS assessment. Additionally, services provided through referral to service provid-
ers outside the county agency may only be documented in narrative form, which prohibits
data extraction.

Ohio
Contact Denielle Ell-Rittinger Phone 614–752–1143
Title Program Administrator Email [email protected]

Office of Families and Children
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) path-
way 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 disposition of AR.
Children who are identified as 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) responsible;
an adjudication of child abuse or neglect; or other forms of confirmation deemed valid by

the public children services agency (PCSA).
■ Indicated–There is circumstantial or other isolated indicators of child abuse or neglect
lacking confirmation; or a determination by the caseworker that the child may have been
abused or neglected based upon completion of an assessment/investigation.
In FFY 2020, Ohio improved in the data collection of data fields regarding the
Comprehensive Addiction Recovery Act (CARA) in Ohio’s referral information. Ohio contin-
ues to improve in the collection of data surrounding child fatalities and near fatalities.
Reports
The number of screened out-referrals received during FFY 2020 decreased from FFY 2019
by nearly 10 percent. However, the percentage of screened–out referrals remained consistent.
Likewise, the percentage of referrals screened in during FFY 2020 remained consistent with
the number of screened in referrals in FFY 2019.
Ohio received fewer referrals in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic. The drastic
decrease of referrals to Ohio’s PCSAs) from March thru May 2020 is attributed to the closing
of schools, sporting events, and the activation of shelter in place orders, which went into effect
in Ohio in the Spring of 2020. By Summer, the rate of referrals in Ohio had improved. Ohio
continued to operate a centralized state referral hotline which provides the referent with the
local county PCSA referral contact and information. Ohio operationalizes a state supervised,
county administered, child protection services program; the intake of referrals is required to
be received by each PCSA. Each PCSA continued to implement county-based processes to
receive referrals and respond to allegations of abuse and neglect. Although several PCSAs
implemented remote working conditions to limit exposure in the office and supplied personal
protective equipment (PPE) to essential workers with help from state resources and distribu-
tion efforts. The Office of Families and Children issued a COVID-19 Q&A resource for the
counties to access. The hours of operation were not changed. Staffing levels across Ohio’s
PCSAs during this time were impacted. Several identified a decrease in staffing levels during
the summer and hiring processes complicated as a result of the pandemic.

Ohio (continued)
Children
Child victims as reported by Ohio are children who have received a disposition of substanti-
ated or indicated in the traditional response pathway.
The requirements established for conducting assessment/investigations of alleged abuse

or neglect were maintained per Ohio Administrative Code rules. Initial contacts, required
assessments of safety, required assessments of risk and interviews requiring contact with
families and children were not altered. Provisions for rules governing face to face monthly
contacts and parental visits for cases receiving ongoing case planning services were relaxed
based on federal guidance. Ohio’s reported time for FFY 2020 from investigation to disposi-
tion remained unaffected.
Ohio continues to improve in the reporting of sex trafficking. There are two identified
description of harm values; one for a child trafficked in forced labor, and the other for a child
trafficked in sex. When either is selected by the end-user, he/she is required to enter a date
the incident was reported to law enforcement. This information is captured at disposition and
the details are entered in the narrative.
Ohio’s CARA data collection has improved substantially in the past few years. Infants with
prenatal substance exposure are tracked via the intake processes and flagged in SACWIS.
Each year, Ohio has been inching closer to the NCANDS benchmark. Future enhancements
Ohio has planned for CARA include an automated plan of safe care document to be made
shareable from with partner agencies, a master release of information which could be gener-
ated from SACWIS and sent to the hospitals, additional functionality to address whether or
not a Help Me Grow Referral was made, and a more detailed selection of services category.
Fatalities
Child maltreatment deaths reported in Ohio’s NCANDS submission are compiled from the
data maintained in SACWIS. The SACWIS data contains information on those children
whose deaths were reported to a PCSA or children involved in a child protective services
(CPS) report who died during the assessment or investigation period. As a county admin-
istered, state supervised, CPS system, Ohio PCSAs maintain discretion of the screening
decision of referrals of maltreatment received. In some cases, a PCSA will screen out 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. The ODJFS internal fatality
review team was able to continue meeting virtually.
Perpetrators
The NCANDS category of “other” perpetrator relationship includes the state categories of
nonrelated (NR) child and NR adult. These are catch-all categories that can be used for any
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 (continued)
Ohio does report noncaregiver perpetrators of sex trafficking 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 has been actively working on plans to implement the Family First Prevention Services
Act beginning October 2021. Ohio secured funding for a pilot of the program to begin April
2021.

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
On March 15th, Governor Stitt declared a state of emergency due to the first evidence of
community spread of COVID-19 in Oklahoma. Most state employees were ordered to work
from home. Following the state of emergency, guidance was issued from the Chief Justice
to Courts limiting face-to-face contact through delaying all hearings except those consti-
tutionally required for 30 days. This order was updated by the Chief Justice in April with a
recommendation to utilize virtual court platforms and delay jury trials until July. Schools did
not return from spring break in March and children were home schooled the remainder of the
year. Child Welfare Services responded to COVID-19 through rapid, intentional development
of strategies designed to support providers and equip staff to work safely. Guidance released
included initial operating procedures, guidance to resource parents, contractors, and congre-
gate care providers. All guidance and operating procedures were updated and modified as
needed as health and safety continued to be assessed.
Face-to-face visits were retained for “emergent” case needs, identified as: (1) initiation
of investigations, including interviewing the child(ren) and alleged perpetrator, (2) visits
with families who are in the first 30 days of a Family-Centered Services (FCS) case with
an in-home safety plan, and (3) visits with families who are in the first 30 days of Trial
Reunification, and these face-to-face interactions occurred through a “response team” of
staff who were equipped with personal protective equipment (PPE) and safety guidance.
Staff working virtually increased the frequency of virtual visits to weekly to support parents,
foster parents, and children during the rapidly changing events of the early pandemic, while
reserving the ability to convert any concerns identified in a virtual visit to trigger a face-to-
face visit.
In May 2020, restrictions on in-person visits between parents and children were eased,
and by June 2020 Child Welfare (CW) resumed most face-to-face activities conducted by
CW specialists. This was response to the safety and emotional needs of children as well as
improvements in the public health tools needed to manage the virus and the availability of
PPE. Armed with better public health information, CWS began crafting a more narrowly
targeted approach to operating a child welfare system during the pandemic. This approach
included modifying in-person activities with high-risk populations, such as congregate
facilities or families who identified as high-risk. It also included regular review of public
health data and consultation with health department officials to target communities where
COVID-19 outbreaks were occurring through community spread. While both the experi-
ence of and public guidance around the COVID-19 pandemic will continue to evolve, CWS
intends to maintain a more surgical approach to its own system, maintaining high quality
child welfare practice while balancing safety and support of its workforce and the communi-
ties and families served by CWS.
July 2020 saw record increases in COVID-19 cases across many parts of and this continued
well into the fall and winter. Statewide emergency orders to isolate ended and did not return
Oklahoma (continued)
to Oklahoma in the same sweeping format as had occurred in the spring. Despite all that
is still being learned, CWS identifies itself as a first responder to child safety and family
well-being and remains committed to in-person parent-child and caseworker visits as much
as possible under appropriate health safety protocols. CWS will continue to use virtual
encounters as a way to augment engagement, and while many activities can occur virtually,
CWS has and must continue to support staff, parents and resource parents in accessing the
technology and platforms needed to participate fully, and must also recognize that, at times,
in-person team meetings with families are more appropriate and may positively influence
decision-making and engagement of families. There is also an ongoing heightened need for
the state and communities to provide tangible support for such things as childcare and other
safety net resources, and to ensure that families and children can adequately connect with
service providers.
Oklahoma has continued with the commitment and emphasis on trauma-informed care as
a priority. The implementation of the Child Behavioral Health Screener (CBHS) with child
welfare staff was statewide and expanded across programs. This expansion has allowed for
all children, no matter their custody status or placement, to be screened and improve access
to services. The established trauma-informed framework has enhanced systemwide capac-
ity to go from trauma-informed to trauma-responsive in addressing the multiple domains
associated with well-being. In the fall of 2019, Oklahoma began to further enhance the
trauma-informed care framework by incorporating the science of hope toward becoming the
first hope-centered and trauma-informed state. Hope therapy provides an evidence-based
approach and common language to be utilized to reduce the harmful impact of adverse child-
hood experiences by increasing one’s protective factors.
Both the delivery of ISS and continued data collection have been affected by COVID-19. By
the middle of March 2020, Oklahoma state agencies, schools, and private agencies altered
their policies and practice due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Special arrangements were made
for families without the ability to connect virtually due to not having an appropriate device,
internet connection, or both. Grants and other funding revenues were used to obtain loaner
devices, and arrangements for internet connectivity also were coordinated. This service
delivery method continued until approximately June 2020 at which time limited face-to-face
service provision resumed. These in-person visits were initially limited in time and involved
social distancing and required all parties to wear masks. Agencies are slowly increasing the
length and frequency of in home and yard visits, based on current risks in the community
and the specific circumstances of the families.
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 office is immediately referred to the Hotline. Each report received at the
Hotline is screened to determine whether the allegations meet the definition of child abuse or
neglect and are within the scope of child protective services (CPS).
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 accordance 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. 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 findings. When a child is determined unsafe in the initial stages of
the assessment and the family’s circumstances or the person responsible 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.
An investigation is conducted when:

a. a report meets the abuse or neglect guidelines and constitutes a serious and immediate
threat to the safety of a child
b. there have been three or more reports accepted for assessment or investigation regard-
ing the family
c. the family has been the subject of a deprived petition
d. the child was diagnosed with fetal alcohol syndrome or DHS determines the child meets
the definition of “drug-endangered child.”
Reports that are appropriate for screening out and are not accepted for assessment or investi-
gation are reports:
a. that clearly fall outside the definitions of abuse and neglect, including minor injury to a
child 10 years of age and older who has no significant 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;
b. concerning a victim 18 years of age or older, unless the victim is in voluntary placement
with DHS;
c. where there is insufficient information to locate the family and child;
d. 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;
e. 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; and
f. 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.
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.
The hotline continued to operate during the pandemic. There were no changes to policies or
procedures related to screening calls. Required same day responses remained an expectation
for Priority 1 investigations.
Children
Oklahoma defines a child as any unmarried person younger than 18 years of age, including
an infant born alive. A “drug endangered child” is defined 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).
A. 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.
B. Every physician, surgeon, or other health care professional including doctors of medi-
cine, licensed osteopathic physicians, residents and interns, any other health care profes-
sional, 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.
C. Whenever DHS determines that a child meets the definition 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.
D. 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 defines 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 defines substance affected infant as one who was born experienc-
ing withdrawal symptoms as a result of prenatal drug exposure or fetal alcohol spectrum
disorder as determined by the direct health care provider. Oklahoma defines a plan of safe
care as a plan developed for an infant with neonatal abstinence 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. The number of
investigations in which a newborn was documented as testing positive at birth for a substance
was 617 in state fiscal year (SFY) 2019, an increase from 485 in SFY 2018.

Effective November 2019, every child taken into custody by DHS shall be given a standard-
ized assessment within 21 days of entering custody. The assessment shall evaluate the
physical, developmental, medical, mental health and educational needs of the child and shall
be considered when developing placement and service plans for the child.
Protocol for investigations were not altered during the pandemic. In-home interviews contin-
ued to be deemed critical and necessary for investigations and for assessing neglect and child
safety. Guidance was given to permit the following telephone interviews:
■ noncustodial parents as long as the parent is not an alleged perpetrator
■ collateral interviews
Staff were advised to contact supervisors/reviewing supervisors for guidance if a Child

Protective Services customer was isolated or quarantined, or had symptoms of COVID-19.
Most hospitals requested that face-to-face contact not occur within the neonatal intensive
care unit. Staff were provided a specific protocol to follow for investigations involving an
infant in NICU.
OKDHS established a Child Welfare Field Response Team in an effort to reduce the risk of
exposure to both families and staff and maintain an in-person response to high-risk family
situations. This team consisted of child welfare specialists who would respond to in-person
family visit needs and address concerns about child safety. Among the response team roles
for investigations were:
■ initiating the investigation
■ interviewing all children in person
■ interviewing the alleged perpetrator in person
■ viewing the home environment
Staff volunteered to serve in the Child Welfare Response Team and were trained and outfit-
ted with personal protective equipment. Month 1 of the response team was April 13, 2020
through May 13, 2020. Month 2 was May 14, 2020 through June 14, 2020.
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 notifies the Governor, the President Pro
Tempore of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the initial inves-
tigative findings of the child protective services review. Notice is communicated securely no
later than 24 hours after the reasonable determination of suspicion.
A final determination of death or near death due to abuse or neglect is made after a report
is received from the office 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 Programs Unit review, which is inclusive of the final determination, are
completed. The Child Protective Services Programs Unit review includes:
a. 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 pertaining

to the death or near-death and previous records when applicable; all pertinent case
information
b. an assessment of compliance of findings with CPS standards
c. 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 certificates of persons
under 18 years of age to the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner monthly, received during the
preceding month. The Office of the Chief Medical Examiner conducts an initial review of death
certificates 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 members are specified 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 Office Child Protective Services staff work closely with the Child
Death Review Board and participate as a member of this board. The state reported 42 fatalities
in the FFY 2020 Child File. Child Protective Services Program staff attribute the increase to
having fallen behind in final determination reviews and subsequently catching back up.
Perpetrators
Oklahoma defines a person responsible for the child’s health, safety, or welfare (PRFC) as:
a. the child’s parent, legal guardian, custodian, or foster parent;
b. 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;
c. an agent or employee of a public or private residential home, institution, facility, or day
treatment program;
d. an owner, operator, or employee of a child care facility whether the home is licensed or
unlicensed; or
e. a foster parent maintaining a therapeutic, emergency, specialized-community, tribal,
kinship, 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 the purpose of conducting a possible

criminal investigation when, upon receipt of a report alleging abuse, neglect, or during the
assessment or investigation, DHS determines:
a. the alleged perpetrator is someone other than a PRFC (third-party perpetrator)
b. 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:
a. DHS has reason to believe, or law enforcement has determined that the alleged perpe-
trator is a parent of another child, not the subject of the criminal investigation, or is a
PRFC of another child;
b. 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 defined 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, when the SACWIS was implemented.
Oklahoma reports all unknown perpetrators. Noncaregiver perpetrators of sex trafficking are
not included. By statute, DHS makes a referral to the appropriate law enforcement jurisdic-
tion when DHS determines the alleged perpetrator is someone other than a PRFC. Also,
by statute, DHS initiates a joint investigation with law enforcement when law enforcement
determines a child may be a victim of human trafficking.
Services
Postinvestigation services are those that are provided during the investigation and continue
after the investigation, or services that begin within 90 days of closure of the investigation. In
cases where the family would benefit from services and the child can be maintained safely in
the home, DHS can refer to community services or refer the case to Comprehensive Home-
Based Services through a DHS contracted provider. If referred to community services, the
DHS investigation can be closed and DHS will determine within 60 days whether the family
has accessed the recommended services and if the child remains safe. If the family is referred
to Comprehensive Home-Based Services, DHS will open a Family Centered Services case
and follow the family for up to six months.
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, worker visitation with children was changed from face-
to-face interaction to live video (or telephone when live video was not possible). This
changed occurred on March 20, 2020 and was statewide. Due to the high risk of FCS cases
and children in trial reunification in-home visits continued to be critical and necessary but
frequency was reduced with live video/telephone contact being used for the remainder of
the visits. During this period, Child Behavioral Health Screeners (CBHS) continued to be
completed via live video in accordance with standard worker visit practice. In-person visita-
tion resumed for all programs statewide beginning June 2020. Some areas of the state did
have different protocols for visitation and may have continued virtually, depending on if that
area was a current hot spot with a surge in Covid numbers. Telehealth continues to be used
as a supplement to face-to-face services due to continued limitations to ensure safety. The
provider agencies reported that most of the collateral services that also serve the families
similarly halted in-person sessions and went virtual in March 2020. A complete accounting
of all of the changes to collateral services is not possible, but it is clear that families had less
access to these resources during this time period and the mode of service delivery changed in
ways with unknown implications to effectiveness.
Oklahoma 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. DHS has serviced chil-
dren in the home utilizing the evidence-based SafeCare model through the Comprehensive
Home Based Services (CHBS) program; however it is designed for families where children
are at moderate risk of removal. To increase the safety and well-being of children in their
own homes, who would otherwise be placed in foster care, DHS participated in the Title
IV-E Waiver Demonstration Project from 2014 to September 2019. The project targeted
those families where the removal risk is higher and therefore not appropriate for CHBS. The
Intensive Safety Services (ISS) was designed and implemented for the Title IV-E Waiver
Demonstration project and was developed to complement the existing infrastructure of
evidence-based home-based services throughout the state. ISS is an intensive family pres-
ervation program that provides services in the home three to five times a week, eight to 10
hours per week for duration of four to six weeks for families with children ages 0-12.
The implementation of ISS began in July 2015 and at the completion of the waiver dem-
onstration project ISS continues to be operational in all Child Welfare Services Regions,
with continued evaluation in Regions 3 and 5 in preparation for the Family First Prevention
Services Act, Title IV-E Prevention Program. The post-waiver evaluation began October
2019 and the favorable results continue with fewer children entering out-of-home care;
greater reduction in safety threats; greater increase in protective capacities; reduced rates of
depressive symptoms over time; and improved parenting skills. From October 2019 through
September 2020, 175 families received ISS service with 118 of those cases closed due to
successful completion of the ISS requirements at the end of the reporting period. There were
318 children served in the 175 cases and 304 children (95 percent) were able to safely remain
in their homes while their parents completed service plans and did not come into the custody
of DHS.

Oregon
Contact Tammy Freeman Phone 503–884–1049
Title Operation & Policy Analyst 3 Email [email protected]

OCWP OR-Kids
Address Oregon Department of Human Services

500 Summer Street, NE E72
Salem, OR 97301
General
OR-Kids, which is the name for Oregon’s CCWIS (Comprehensive Child Welfare
Information Systems) was implemented as a SACWIS and is currently transitioning to a
CCWIS and is under CCWIS regulations.
In mid-March, COVID-19 and the Governor’s Stay at Home Order shifted Oregon Child
Abuse Hotline’s (ORCAH) essential operation of 200 staff to teleworking. With the help of
many internal and external partners, we were able to continue responding to reports of child
abuse with the use of technology and system alignment within our continuity of operations
plan. By the end of the first quarter, 95 percent of the Oregon Child Abuse Hotline staff
had successfully transitioned to teleworking during the pandemic. Oregon will continue to
work on improving the extraction procedures, as needed, in order to accurately report all
NCANDS data.
Reports
The FFY 2020 number of referrals decreased 10 percent or more from FFY 2019 due, at least
in part, to the stay-at-home order the Governor issued mid-March, which severely curtailed
contact between children and mandatory reporters. After the stay-at-home order was lifted,
the number of reports began to increase, but remained lower than the previous year.
Children
Additional programming is in place to capture data around infants with prenatal substance
exposure including a safe plan of care and referral for appropriate services, but was
not implemented in our SACWIS system in time to capture any data for the FFY 2020
submission.
Fatalities
There is no systemic cause for the decrease in the number of fatalities between FFY 2019
and FFY 2020. The State reports fatalities in the NCANDS Agency File. These cases are
dependent upon medical examiner report findings, law enforcement findings, and completed
CPS assessments and the fatality cannot be reported as being due to child abuse/neglect until
these findings are final. Reported fatalities due to child abuse for FFY 2020 represent deaths
due to child abuse for cases where the findings were final and are correct as of January 29,
2021.
Services
The State’s CCWIS system does not collect data on preventive services; therefore, it does not
currently have NCANDS child-level reporting on these services.

Pennsylvania
Contact Elysa Springer Phone 717–409–3933
Title Systems and Data Management Director Email [email protected]

Office of Children, Youth and Families
Address Pennsylvania Department of Human Services

1006 Hemlock Drive, Willow Oak Building #43
Harrisburg, PA 17110
General
Upon receipt of a report of suspected child abuse, the department shall immediately transmit
an oral notice or a notice by electronic technologies to the appropriate county agency that
a report of suspected child abuse has been received. If the report received does not suggest
suspected child abuse, but does suggest a need for social services or other services or assess-
ment, the department shall transmit the information to the county agency for appropriate
action. These allegations or concerns are referred to as General Protective Services (GPS)
and are not classified as child abuse in Pennsylvania. The information shall not be considered
a child abuse report unless the agency to which the information was referred has reasonable
cause to suspect after assessment that abuse occurred. If the agency has reasonable cause
to suspect that abuse occurred, the agency shall notify the department and the initial report
shall be upgraded to a child abuse report. Pennsylvania defines child abuse as intentionally,
knowingly or recklessly doing any of the following:
1) Causing bodily injury to a child through any recent act or failure to act.
2) Fabricating, feigning, or intentionally exaggerating or inducing a medical symptom or
disease which results in a potentially harmful medical evaluation or treatment to the
child through any recent act.
3) Causing or substantially contributing to serious mental injury to a child through any act
or failure to act or a series of such acts or failures to act.
4) 4Causing sexual abuse or exploitation of a child through any act or failure to act.
5) Creating a reasonable likelihood of bodily injury to a child through any recent act or
failure to act.
6) Creating a likelihood of sexual abuse or exploitation of a child through any recent act or
failure to act.
7) Causing serious physical neglect of a child.
8) Engaging in any of the following recent acts:
i. Kicking, biting, throwing, burning, stabbing, or cutting a child in a manner that
endangers the child.
ii. Unreasonably restraining or confining a child, based on consideration of the
method, location, or the duration of the restraint or confinement.
iii. Forcefully shaking a child under one year of age.
iv. Forcefully slapping or otherwise striking a child under one year of age.
v. Interfering with the breathing of a child.
vi. Causing a child to be present at a location while a violation of 18 Pa.C.S. §7508.2
(relating to operation of methamphetamine laboratory) is occurring, provided that
the violation is being investigated by law enforcement.
vii. Leaving a child unsupervised with an individual, other than the child’s parent, who
the actor knows or reasonably should have known:
A. Is required to register as a Tier II or Tier III sexual offender under 42 Pa.C.S. Ch.
97 Subch. H (relating to registration of sexual offenders), where the victim of the
sexual offense was under 18 years of age when the crime was committed.

Pennsylvania (continued)
B. Has been determined to be a sexually violent predator under 42 Pa.C.S. §9799.24
(relating to assessments) or any of its predecessors.
C. Has been determined to be a sexually violent delinquent child as defined in 42
Pa.C.S. §9799.12 (relating to definitions).
4) Causing the death of the child through any act or failure to act.
5) Engaging a child in a severe form of trafficking in persons or sex trafficking, as those
terms are defined under Section 103 of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000.
Reports
In Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2020, the number of reports of suspected child abuse decreased
14 percent from FFY 2019. Since the COVID-19 pandemic began, reports of suspected
abuse and neglect have declined overall. There was a significant drop-off in the number of
reports received in the spring of 2020 when compared to historical trends. We believe this to
be attributed to reduced contact between children and mandated reporters such as teachers,
social workers, childcare providers, and health professionals who play such a critical role in
child protection. However, as counties and schools began to reopen, our reporting volume
did eventually increase again. The state child abuse hotline, ChildLine, continued to operate
without interruption throughout the duration of this time by having hotline staff telework
from their homes. Additionally, both the Department and the County Children and Youth
Agencies engaged in efforts to do outreach to communities through media campaigns to
highlight the ChildLine hotline number, and to encourage continued reporting of concerns
for children during the pandemic.
Children
In FFY 2020 the number of duplicate victims decreased by from FFY 2019. This was likely
the result of the decrease in the number of overall CPS reports which was experienced during
the COVID-19 shutdowns.
In October of 2020, Pennsylvania added fields to capture notifications of Substance Affected

Infants made to the Department. However, there are still several barriers which exist which
prevent Pennsylvania from being able to provide this data.
■ There is no means of de-duplicating these children to ensure they are not counted more
than once. This is largely related to the issue with person records in the CWIS System.
Currently, persons often have more than one master person record due to system con-
straints. There are plans to remedy this in the future, with the creation of a statewide case
management system.
■ Because the Substance Affected Infant notifications are not captured as part of CPS refer-
rals (they are captured as either General Protective Services or Information Only Type
referrals, depending on whether or not child welfare concerns exist), and Pennsylvania
currently does not report NCANDS data for non-CPS referrals due to the aforementioned
person record issues.
Fatalities
Pennsylvania law requires that every child fatality and near fatality resulting from substanti-
ated abuse, or for cases in which no status determination has been made within 30 days, be
reviewed at the county level. A state level review is conducted on all fatalities and near fatalities
where abuse is suspected regardless of status determination. The information and data collected
Pennsylvania (continued)
from both levels of review are analyzed for trends and risk factors across Pennsylvania. These
reviews and analyses provide the foundation used for determining the root causes of severe
child abuse and neglect; they are also used to better understand what responses or services
can be used in the future to prevent similar occurrences. Pennsylvania does not use data from
sources and agencies other than child protective services to compile and report child fatalities.
Pennsylvania did not change any policies related to child fatality reviews as a result of the
COVID-19 pandemic. The child fatality reviews were conducted as statutorily required.
Perpetrators
Pennsylvania defines a perpetrator as a person who has committed child abuse and is any of
the following:
■ A parent of the child.
■ A spouse or former spouse of the child’s parent.
■ A paramour or former paramour of the child’s parent.
■ 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 pro-

gram, activity or service.
■ An individual 14 years of age or older who resides in the same home as the child.
■ 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 affinity by birth or adoption to
the child.
■ An individual 18 years of age or older who engages in severe forms of trafficking in
persons or sex trafficking, as those terms are defined under section 103 of the Trafficking
Victims Protections Act of 2000.
Additionally, only the following may be considered a perpetrator for failing to act:
■ A parent of the child.
■ A spouse or former spouse of the child’s parent.
■ A paramour or former paramour of the child’s parent.
■ A person 18 years of age or older and responsible for the child’s welfare.
■ A person 18 years of age or older who resides in the same home as the child.
Services
Pennsylvania currently reports limited services data and plans on providing more complete
services data in the future.

Puerto Rico
Contact Lisa M. Agosto Carrasquillo Phone 787–625–4900
Title Director Central Registry, Puerto Rico Administration Email [email protected]

for Families and Children (ADFAN)
Address Family Department

185 Roosevelt Avenue, P.O. Box 194090
San Juan, PR 00919–4090
General
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 services.
Four Administrations operate with fiscal and administrative autonomy. The Department of
the Family composition is as follows:
■ Office 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),
■ Administration for Integral Development of Childhood (ACUDEN, Spanish acronym)
The Administrations are agencies dedicated to execute 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
manage the programs and provide the operation and supervision of the Integrated Services
Centers (ISC) at the local levels. The regional levels (10 regional offices) supervise the local
offices.
They are also responsible for implementing and developing those functions delegated by the
Secretary through the redefinition 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 final approval of the Secretary.
The functions and responsibilities of Administration for Children and Families (ADFAN) are
executed through the following programmatic and administrative components:
■ Administrator’s Office
■ 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
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
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

Puerto Rico (continued)
and programmatic information about the movement of CAN referrals and cases receiving
services by ADFAN.
Puerto Rico has not established changes in policy processes related to child abuse investiga-
tions. We continue using the procedure established in the April 2013 manual. The manual
standardizes the processes to be able to evaluate safety areas and make decisions to protect
child if necessary.
Reports
In March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic situation represented a challenge that was
addressed through government decisions that certainly impacted protection services. In an
effort to prevent the spread and contagion, the Government of Puerto Rico took the neces-
sary measures to ensure the well-being of all citizens. This included executive orders that
established the total closure of businesses, schools, non-essential government services, care
centers, private services, 24-hour curfews for the first few months, among other areas that
suffered total or partial closures.
This situation and the measures taken led to changes in the way protective services were
handled and also an impact on the reduction of reports that we attribute to the lack of
exposure of children to services for the lock down, report sources were not operating. The
decrease in reports in 2020 was 30 percent.
The Hotline is classified as an essential service, so the private company that operates this
contracted service made a work plan to ensure that all calls are answered, in addition to
keeping a record of reports related to the emergency we are facing. This Hotline was kept
operating 24 hours a day, seven days a week, via telephone.
Children
The Special Investigations Units who handle referrals for the investigation of child abuse
received through the Hotline continued to operate 24 hours, 7 days a week. However,
the situation brought temporary changes in the handling of the reports received, the
Administration for Families and Children, decided through an official communication and
based on the executive orders in force, the following:
■ The reports received that would be attended to would be only those where elements of
present danger or imminent danger were identified as catalogued by the line and the evalu-
ation of the supervisor of the Special Investigations Unit.
■ The early morning shifts from 12:00 midnight to 8:00 a.m. would be staffed by personnel
who would be available On Call.

■ A special shift was added to work emergencies received in the early morning, from 6:00
a.m. to 2:00 p.m.

■ The offices were not allowed to be open to the public.
■ No more than two workers were allowed to be present in the offices, the rest were kept on
call.
Contact with families in pandemic investigations was limited exclusively to cases of extreme
emergencies that posed a danger to the physical and emotional safety of the children con-
cerned. There were no changes, the investigations were not attended with virtual tools but
with visits to the families. Response time was seriously affected, especially in situations that
did not represent a risk or danger to the safety of children. These reports have had to wait
longer for their intervention. During the pandemic, no changes in procedures or policies were
established in the management of infants with prenatal substance exposure situations.
Fatalities
During the national emergency due to the COVID-19 pandemic, an emergency shutdown
was established in Puerto Rico in March 2020. Death Review Panel meetings were not held
due to the situation. We are in the process of resuming them through the virtual tools. Puerto
Rico did not change any policies related to child fatalities reviews.
Perpetrators
The PR system has the capacity to collect data related to sexual trafficking, these data are
cataloged in the typologies, however, our file reflects a minimum amount of research in this
area. This can be attributed to the fact that in our protection law, sex trafficking situations
are cataloged when the perpetrator is a father, mother or responsible person, but they are not
third person.
The NCANDS category of Other perpetrator relationship includes the state categories of
other caregivers; staff of institution for children, school, foster care, child care and others
institution responsibility for the care, education, supervision and treatment of physical and
emotional needs, as defined by our protection law.
Services
As a result of the emergency caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, services were impacted
as case management priorities were established and services in the community to which
families had access were closed. Even so, services that were a pressing need for families
were worked on. Direct work with families and visits were changed to include remote work
and case management with virtual tools. In the area of family preservation case management,
a plan for remote work was established with the following considerations:
■ Constant review of the mechanized system to evaluate active case reports received.
■ Coordination of intervention in reports when required. reports of present danger or
imminent danger that risk the safety of the children will be handled. Reports of allegations
of maltreatment must be read and analyzed to determine if intervention is warranted.
■ Coordination of outings for intervention with families duly discussed and planned.
■ Ongoing review of new cases received from the Investigations Unit for required services
and necessary actions to be taken.

■ Review of cases and reports requiring forensic and psychotherapy evaluations in sexual
abuse situations and coordinate follow-up with service providers.

■ Discussion with supervisors, at the regional or central level, as necessary to assess the
stage of cases and establish priorities

■ Identification of cases that meet closure criteria.
■ Identification of cases requiring immediate intervention and coordination with the
supervisor.
■ Coordination of virtual or telephone communications with participants to obtain informa-
tion on their current situation.

■ Updating of service plans in the cases

Working guidelines were established to avoid contact unless necessary and the use of the
Microsoft Teams platform as the first alternative for official communications between staff
and participants.
Removals were not affected as follow-up on removals was assigned to the special investiga-
tions units as they were responsible for investigating, petitioning, locating the children and
drafting a Protection Act petition when a removal of a child was required. Once this was
completed, the Region would communicate through its Associate Director for coordination
with the local office receiving the case and the required follow-up.
Puerto Rico received two CARES funds:

■ Family Violence–The Administration of Families and Children, Family Department,
delegates funds to 22 community organizations to provide integrated services to vulner-

able sectors of the country. The main population receiving services are battered women
with their children who are victims of child abuse. Services and assistance also will be
provided to victims of domestic violence, their children in shelters and outpatient services,
70 percent of the fund assigned to each entity will be used for shelters, 25 percent for
support services and 5 percent for administrative expenses.
■ Child Welfare–The Administration of Families and Children will use the funds for
purchase cell phones, internet services and others technological tools for social workers,
who are teleworking to participate in virtual visits, court hearing or access other needed
services. In general, the funds were designated to protection, welfare, and safety of
children in the custody of the state.
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.
The average number of out-of-court contacts between the court-appointed representa-

tives and the child victims includes only children in foster care as these are the cases that
require court monitoring and the children that have a legal representative according to state
procedures.

Rhode Island
Contact Leon Saunders Phone 401–528–3850
Title Agency IT Manager Email [email protected]

Information Technology
Address Rhode Island Department of Children, Youth, and Families

101 Friendship Street
Providence, RI 02903
General
In addition to an investigation response, a screened in report may result in:
■ Task to CPI- does not result in a Family Functioning Assessment
■ Prevention Response- goes to Screening and Response Unit and may result in the comple-
tion of a Family Functioning Assessment (participation is voluntary)
Reports
Rhode Island experienced a significant decrease in the number of referrals (reports) received
by the child abuse hotline due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The state continued to operate the
child abuse hotline throughout the pandemic with no change in hours or staffing. Our opera-
tions have remained uninterrupted 24/7. In January 2021, in an effort to reduce the spread of
infection and support continued operations, functionality was successfully implemented to
enable the RI Child Abuse Hotline to be answered remotely by our staff. The hours, process
and staffing used to screen reports to our Hot Line remained unchanged. The Hot Line staff
are required to ask a series of COVID-19 Screening questions when answering calls. While
the agency experienced temporary staffing issues due to staff needing to quarantine, overall,
there was no reduction in the number of staff.
Children
The Department developed an Emergency Regulation which enables us to extend the
response times for Priority 2 and Priority 3 investigations this emergency regulation has not
been utilized but remains in effect.:
■ Priority 2 Response–The CPS report must be processed for case assignment within two
(2) hours after the call is completed. The CPI must respond to the report within twelve (12)
hours of the report being received to CPS. For the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic,
initial contact by the CPI may be by telephone within the time frame referenced above if it
is determined that the child is not at substantial risk of harm, and the perpetrator does not
have access to the victim. The CPI must make face-to-face contact with the subjects of the
report within 24 hours of receipt of the report.
■ Priority 3 Response–The CPS report must be processed for case assignment within four
(4) hours after the call is completed. The CPI must respond to the report within forty-
eight (48) hours of the report being received to CPS. For the duration of the COVID-19
pandemic, initial contact by the CPI may be by telephone within the time frame referenced
above if it is determined that the child is not at substantial risk of harm, and the perpetra-
tor does not have access to the victim. The CPI must make face-to-face contact with the
subjects of the report within 72 hours of receipt of the report.
CPIs are required to ask the COVID-19 Screening Questions prior to entering a home or
making face-to-face contact. Staff are provided PPE for themselves and families. The state
did allow some investigation contacts to be conducted virtually but contact with the victim
continued to be in person.

Rhode Island (continued)
Data for children with a plan of safe care is collected at the Dept. of Health and can only be
reported in the state comments. Data for the number of children with a plan of safe care is
maintained at the RI Department of Health. DCYF cannot report this data in the child file.
The RI Dept. of Health reports 140 children received a plan of safe care and 133 children
received services. No policies or procedures changed regarding the referral of infants with
prenatal substance exposure change during the pandemic.
Fatalities
No policies changed related to child fatality reviews and reviews remained uninterrupted and
are conducted virtually.
Perpetrators
The state reports noncaregiver perpetrators of sex trafficking to NCANDS. The NCANDS
category of other perpetrator relationship includes any individual known or suspected to be the
perpetrator of sex trafficking of a child under 18 or youth in the care of DCYF (up to age 21)
Services
How have in-home services been affected? As Rhode Island entered different phases of the
pandemic response, updated guidance was provided to our contracted providers of group
care and home-based services regarding how to minimize health risks to self, other residents,
and staff. During periods of high Covid positivity rates, DCYF sought to maintain continuity
of care to the extent possible with all essential contact occurring face-to-face with appropri-
ate precautions and all non-essential face-to-face contacts with clients being held virtually.
During the pandemic, many of the states childcare centers were temporarily closed. This
resulted in a drop in the number of children receiving day care services. Rhode Island did
experience a decrease in child removals. This may have been the result of fewer CPS reports
received or may be the result of the new SAFE practice model implemented (the Family
Functioning Assessment).
Rhode Island received CARES Supplemental funding in April in amount of $127,345 which
was distributed evenly to our 5 vendors who operate our statewide prevention programming
(the Family Care Community Partnerships) to address immediate needs of families strug-
gling due to COVID-19. Child welfare case management is provided by DCYF staff while
in-home clinical and family stabilization services are all contracted.

South Carolina
Contact Lynn Horne Phone 803–724–5933
Title Business Analyst Email [email protected]
Address SC Department of Social Services

1628 Browning Road
Columbia, SC 29210–6924

South Dakota
Contact JoLynn Bostrom Phone 605–347–2588 ext. 203

Division of Child Protection Services
Address South Dakota 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 benefit 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 CPS continued to
serve families throughout the pandemic. CPS 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 intake hotline continued to operate with
staff working in the office during the pandemic. Visits that were previously conducted face-
to-face were allowed to temporarily be conducted virtually; however, this was dependent on
case specific 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 NCANDS category of “other” report source includes the state categories of clergy, com-
munity person, coroner, domestic violence shelter employee or volunteer, funeral director,
other state agency, public official and tribal official.
Children
The data reported in the NCANDS Child File includes children who were victims of sub-
stantiated reports of child abuse and neglect where the perpetrator is the parent, guardian,
or custodian. Reports of abuse and neglect are categorized into five types- neglect, physical
abuse, sexual abuse, sex trafficking, and/or emotional maltreatment. Medical neglect is
included in the neglect category.
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
involved in a report disposed during the report period, even if their date of death may have

South Dakota (continued)
actually been in the previous year. The State of South Dakota reports child fatalities in the
Child File. South Dakota law mandates which entities are required to report child abuse and
neglect:
Any physician, dentist, doctor of osteopathy, chiropractor, optometrist, emergency
medical technician, paramedic, mental health professional or counselor, podiatrist,
psychologist, religious healing practitioner, social worker, hospital intern or resident,
parole or court services officer, law enforcement officer, teacher, school counselor,
school official, 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, coro-
ner, or any safety-sensitive position as defined in § 3-6C-1, who has reasonable cause
to suspect that a child under the age of eighteen has been abused or neglected shall
report that information. 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 may report that information.
South Dakota law 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 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:
Any person who has reasonable cause to suspect that a child has died as a result
of child abuse or neglect 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 findings to the state’s attorney and
the Department of Social Services. Any person required to report under this sec-
tion who knowingly and intentionally fails to make a report is guilty of a Class 1
misdemeanor.
When CPS receives reports of child maltreatment deaths from any source, CPS documents
the report in FACIS (SACWIS). Reports that meet the NCANDS data definition 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.
Perpetrators
Perpetrators are defined 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 benefit 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
South Dakota (continued)
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.

Tennessee
Contact Neal Thompson Phone 615–253–1017
Title Business Intelligence Specialist-Intermediate Email [email protected]

Strategic Technology Solutions
Finance and Administration
Address Davy Crockett Tower, 2nd floor

500 James Robertson Parkway
Nashville, TN 37208
General
Tennessee has Multiple Response. There are three pathways:
■ Investigations: All cases deemed severe abuse including all child death/near death
incidents, sexual abuse, and forms of physical abuse and neglect where a child has experi-
enced harm or is at imminent risk of harm
■ Assessments: cases of child maltreatment with a risk of harm to a child
■ Resource Linkage: No direct child maltreatment but an identified need such as lack of
housing, food or need for behavioral/mental health service referral
Reports
The number of referrals dropped during the pandemic. It was most noticeable during
months where schools would have been in session and even when they returned remotely,
there was not as high a rate of reports to the hotline as the prior year. The hotline remained
operational during the pandemic. The only time the hotline was not operational was during
the Christmas day bombing in Nashville. No changes for COVID-19 were made to screen-
ing policies or procedures. Child Welfare agencies did experience staff reduction due to the
pandemic.
Children
The state continued to conduct face-to-face investigations and assessments during the
pandemic. After the initial contact, if no safety or risk issues were determined, follow up
contact could be done via FaceTime or other video-conferencing applications. inclusion of
verification by a medical provider was added to internal policies to collect and reporting data
to NCANDS for infants with prenatal substance exposure.
Fatalities
The state did not change any child fatality policies due to COVID-19 and reviews continued
to be conducted even during lockdown.
Perpetrators
Tennessee reports non-familial traffickers as caregivers to match the definition provider in
state law.
Services
Many service providers limited or canceled in-home service provision and transitioned to
telemedicine. The state experienced delays in service provision by third party vendors as
they adapted to the pandemic. Child removals were not affected by the pandemic.

Texas
Contact Mark Prindle Phone 512–658–7005
Title System Analyst Email [email protected]

Information and Technology
Address Texas Department of Family and Protective Services

2323 Ridgepoint Drive
Austin, TX 78754
General
While Texas established precautions for the safety of children, families, providers, and staff,
essential work continued throughout the pandemic. Many courts adjusted to virtual hearings,
providers added virtual platforms for appropriate services and visits, but in-person investiga-
tions and visitations continued unless unsafe. Texas prioritized parent and sibling visitations
whenever possible. Texas worked to provide staff with appropriate personal protective equip-
ment to allow them to continue to visit the children on their caseloads while maintaining their
own safety and the safety of the children, families, and providers they contacted. And Texas
continued to stress the importance of timely medical and dental appointments, including
vaccinations.
Alternative Response (AR) is an approach that responds differently than traditional investiga-
tions to reports of abuse/neglect. It allows for a more flexible, family engaging approach while
still focusing on the safety of the children as much as in a traditional investigation. AR 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. Generally, the Alternative
Response track will serve accepted child abuse and neglect cases that do not allege serious
harm. AR cases will differ from traditional investigations cases in that there will be no substan-
tiation of allegations related roles, or dispositions will not be used, names of perpetrators will
not be entered into the Central Registry (a repository for confirmed 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 AR.
The family engagement/solution focused practice skills that are used in AR were introduced in
Region 6A in 2019. AR was fully implemented in Region 6A in March 2021.
Texas implemented the SDM Safety Assessment and Risk Assessment in Investigations, and
the SDM Family Strengths and Needs Assessment in FBSS and conservatorship. The SDM®
system includes a series of evidenced-based assessments used at key points in child protection
casework to support staff in making consistent, accurate, and equitable decisions throughout
the course of their work with families.
Reports
Texas saw some variation in the number of abuse/neglect intakes received, which affected
the number of investigations conducted and subsequent removals. However, Texas continues
to examine its data for any direct impacts of the virus. The statewide intake system had
virtual protocols and never ceased operation. DFPS can say that intakes decreased as schools
moved to virtual participation and as families were encouraged to isolate for safety. Texas
Texas (continued)
sees the largest number of intakes from school, medical, and law enforcement personnel, and
as these personnel interacted with children less, intakes decreased. Intakes in March-May
2020 more closely mirrored intakes traditionally seen in the summer months, when kids are
out of school. DFPS does believe that intakes have begun to normalize in recent months. No
changes to the workforce as a result of the pandemic were experienced, though there were a
number of staff and providers impacted.
Children
Texas did develop protocols for virtual contacts and utilized the protocol for all stages of
service when face-to-face contacts were determined to be unsafe. Texas utilized the flex-
ibility to have virtual contacts, as provided by the Children’s Bureau. Texas developed a
COVID-19 page on its public website, as well as a protocol page for internal staff, to ensure
ever-changing protocols were appropriately publicized.
DFPS works with medical professionals when there is a substance exposed infant to ensure
that any needed medical assessments or evaluations are coordinated and followed up on.
DFPS staff will also work to ensure that any additional follow-up occur with programs such
as Early Childhood Intervention when there is a concern about the developmental needs of
the child. For the mothers in these cases the case worker works with local community part-
ners (most often Outreach, Screening, Assessment, and Referral or the Local Mental Health
Authority) to set up drug and alcohol assessments to determine the most appropriate inter-
vention for the mother. Because of impact that prenatal substance exposure may have on each
child is unique based on a multitude of factors (including but not limited to the frequency of
substance exposure, the drug exposure type, the prenatal care and medical support received,
the familial supports available post birth, and the family’s willingness to engage in services
aimed at addressing the substance use) the intervention for each mother and child will look
different. Despite these minor differences the overall goal of helping the family ensure the
safety and wellbeing of the child and address any substance use disorder that the family may
have is the constant in these cases.
Fatalities
The source of information used for reporting child maltreatment fatalities is based on an
allegation that has a disposition of “reason to believe” with a severity of “fatal” and the child
has a date of death in the DFPS IMPACT system. DFPS uses information from the State’s
vital statistics department, child death review teams, law enforcement agencies and medical
examiners’ offices 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’ offices 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 definitions in the Texas Family Code and/or may not be interpreted or
applied in the same manner as within DFPS.

Texas (continued)
There was an increase in child fatalities during 2020 with the vast majority of the increase
due to concerns surrounding neglectful supervision. In FFY 2020, 28 children died in vehicle
related incidents, including eight children left in hot cars—the highest number in more than the
decade. There were also increases in youth who died by suicide and ongoing concerns of unsafe
sleep practices combined with substance abuse.
Perpetrators
Relationships reported for individuals are based on the person’s relationship to the oldest
alleged victim in the investigation. Texas 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/nonrelative. The state does not currently report noncaregiver perpetrators of
sex trafficking.
The number of records with group home/residential facility staff perpetrator relationship type
doubled from 2019 to 2020. The Residential Child Care Investigations (RCCI) launched a
project in late 2019 to close a large number of outstanding investigations. This project resulted
in a significant number of investigations being closed in 2020, which may be a reason for the
difference observed between 2019 and 2020.
Services
Texas serves children and families at imminent risk of entering the foster care system through
family preservation services in the Family-Based Safety Services (FBSS) stage of service. In
addition to some purchased client services that provide limited counseling, drug testing and
more, many of the services that families are referred to are provided by community organiza-
tions and nonprofits at little to no cost to the state or the family (sometimes cost is assessed on
the family’s ability to pay). While funding from the state has not changed during the pandemic
(primarily due to Texas’ biennial legislative and appropriations cycle), access has most certainly
been modified. Services that may have previously been provided in person have shifted to
virtual platforms to help observe social distancing and prevent the further spread of the virus.
Texas observed some positive developments due to the addition of virtual options for families.
Texas has observed additional parent involvement in services because barriers like transporta-
tion and childcare have been eliminated by allowing virtual involvement.
DFPS has received some additional federal funding that has aided in its mission to protect
children and families. Specifically, the increased FMAP during the disaster declarations has
helped Texas continue to provide necessary services. Texas also utilized some CARES act
money to provide limited grants to childcare providers to assist in additional costs due to
COVID-19 response.
Texas does have a community-based system under which the state contracts with a vendor
to provide certain services to children and families. Texas maintains all responsibility for
investigations of abuse/neglect, but has contracted for placement and case management services
in certain areas of the state. Texas law directs a statewide rollout of outsourced services, but
an estimated 21 percent of children in Texas foster care are currently served through these
contracts. DFPS worked closely with all residential providers, including these outsourced

Texas (continued)
contractors, during the pandemic to ensure appropriate procedures for safety, including
quarantining children who were COVID-19 positive. Texas also required all providers to report
positive children or staff who may have exposed children to the virus.

Utah
Contact Kai Gentille Phone 801–538–4100
Title Senior Data Analyst Email [email protected]

Division of Child and Family Services
Address Utah Department of Human 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. At this time, none of
Utah’s efforts have had a direct effect on NCANDS data for FFY 2020. Adaptations made
concerning COVID-19 resulted in minimal disruption.
Reports
The investigation start date is defined as the date a child is first 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 specific 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 finding
would still be unsupported.

■ The specific allegation is under investigation and no new information is gathered.
The state uses the following findings:

■ Supported–a finding, 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 identified perpetrator is responsible.
■ Unsupported–a finding based on the information available to the worker at the end of
the investigation that there was insufficient information to conclude that abuse, neglect,
or dependency occurred. A finding of unsupported means that the worker was unable to
make a positive determination that the allegation was actually without merit.
■ Without merit–an affirmative finding 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 classified as supported, non-supported,
or without merit.
COVID-19 had virtually no impact on our reporting process. There was no change to the
screening process and our hotline kept the same hours. The state did experience a below
average number of reports, especially during the early months of the pandemic, which may
affect data comparisons to prior years.

Utah (continued)
Children
Utah previously reported some contributing factors associated with a case (such as drug
abuse or certain disabilities) as “caregiver risk factors.” However, upon review we have
determined that many of these factors cannot be definitively linked to the caregiver(s), and
beginning in FFY 2018 we only report these factors if they are a characteristic linked to a
caregiver on the case. Factors related to the family’s housing, poverty or home environment
in a more general sense are reported as they were for FFY 2017.
COVID-19 resulted in the adoption of virtual interviews/visits in cases where exposure was a
reasonable risk. Virtual interactions were conducted using Google Meet with video function-
ality being used. If there were no concerns then visits occurred as normal. COVID-19 had no
impact on our reporting, policies or procedures regarding the referral of infants with prenatal
substance exposure. With regards to plan of safe care on fetal exposure cases:
■ Our current criteria for this field is a supported allegation of fetal exposure, accompanied
by a safety rating on the case citing drug abuse and subsequent in-home or out-of-home
care involving the child (as these are required to have applicable plans).
■ This criteria may exclude some children who meet the standard, but can currently only be
confirmed by qualitative review of the case. If the state implements more a more direct
data-accessible measure in the future we will implement it into our NCANDS reporting.
Fatalities
Concerns related to child abuse and neglect, 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 2020. Meetings of the review board were able to be conducted
during the pandemic.
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 10, except in extreme circum-
stances. Utah does report non-caregiver perpetrators of sex trafficking should such a case
arise.
Services
As of April 2015, Utah’s CPS workers no longer screen for developmental delays. Instead,
all children 34½ months of age and under who are supported victims of abuse or neglect are
automatically referred to the Utah Department of Health’s Baby Watch Early Intervention
Program (BWEIP).
COVID-19 had several impacts on ongoing services. Like with CPS interviews, cases with a
risk of exposure were able to be conducted virtually. The largest impact was from the delay
in the court system, which affected the time to closure of several cases in April. Services are
outsourced where appropriate.

Vermont
Contact Melissa Burt Phone 802–760–7802
Title Quality Assurance Coordinator Email [email protected]

Vermont Family Services Division
Address Vermont Department for Children and Families

280 State Drive, HC1 North
Waterbury, VT 05671
General
Vermont has a differential response program with an assessment track and an investigation
track. About 40 percent of cases are assigned to the assessment pathway. In the assessment
pathway, the disposition options are services needed and no services needed. Cases assigned
to the assessment pathway may be switched to the investigation pathway, but not vice versa.
Data from both pathways are reported to NCANDS. The Family Services Division is respon-
sible for responding to allegations of child abuse or risk of harm by caregivers and sexual
abuse by any person (not just caregivers). In addition to conducting our statutory child abuse
investigations and assessments, we also have an option to conduct family assessments. These
family assessments do not meet statutory requirements for abuse and neglect but provide an
option to engage with families where there are concerns. Because these family assessments
are not part of our abuse and neglect statute, they are not reflected in our data. However, it
is important to acknowledge that on an annual basis we conduct approximately 1,000 family
assessments. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Vermont made some changes to procedures in
order to adhere to the most up-to-date guidance around health and safety for the children and
families that we work with.
Reports
Vermont operates a statewide child protection hotline, available 24/7. All intakes are handled
by social workers and screening decisions are handled by hotline supervisors. These same
supervisors make the initial track assignment decision. 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 and delinquent behavior, out of home sexual abuse reports including
teen sexting with or without consent, teen sexual harassment, as well as family configuration
and our practice of entering reports under the primary caretaker when there are multiple
children involved. This often 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.
As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, Vermont saw a great reduction in the number of calls
made to our centralized intake hotline during the statewide lockdown, which resulted in a
reduction in the number of reports screened in for an intervention. However, our centralized
intake staff continued to operate business as usual by means of remote working. There were
no changes made to the hours of operation or staffing levels during this time.
Vermont made temporary changes to their screening practices beginning in early March
2020. Changes included assigning all accepted reports as assessments except for substantial
child endangerment and reports involving allegations of immediate risk to a child 3 years

Vermont (continued)
and younger. The commencement options were broadened for assessments to include video-
conferencing as a preferred option, therefore avoiding in-person contact whenever possible.
By June 2020, screening criteria was updated to require an in-person response for all child
safety interventions regarding children aged 6 and under. Practices returned to normal and
followed existing policy for children of all ages by July and remained in place throughout the
remainder of the FFY 2020 reporting period.
At the onset of COVID-19, and during the statewide lockdown, all district staff performing
child safety interventions shifted to telework to perform their job duties. When in-person
contact was necessary, staff were directed to ask the Vermont Department of Health screen-
ing questions. There was no forced reduction in the number of staff to carry out the interven-
tions, but consideration for the increase in response time should be made when there was less
staff available to commence due to positive tests or exposure to the virus.
Children
The Family Services Division is responsible for investigating allegations of child abuse or
neglect by caregivers and sexual abuse by any person. The department investigates risk of
physical harm and risk of sexual abuse.
As mentioned in the reports section, Vermont did in fact shift the screening practices to
adhere to the health and safety guidance provided by administration regarding COVID-19.
All reports were accepted as assessments when possible, except when substantial child
endangerments for a child younger than 3 years of age was present. This approach continued
to be phased out based on COVID-19 health and safety allowance, with the department reas-
sessing each month. During lockdown, virtual investigations and assessments were utilized
when in-person contact was not advised or possible due to COVID-19 symptoms being
reported as present.
Vermont saw an improvement between the length of time from the start of an investigation
to the point of reaching a final disposition at the onset of the pandemic through June. This
is likely attributed to the reduction in the number of calls and screened in reports, while
maintaining the same level of staff, along with the flexibility that remote work created. The
numbers start to move back to what we would typically see for the months of July through
September.
Although Vermont has been collecting sex trafficking data within our database, we have
not yet successfully coded our NCANDS script to include it as its own maltreatment type.
We will continue to work with our IT department to adjust our coding so that this data be
included as it should in next year’s submission.
Vermont faces a few challenges regarding collecting and reporting data to NCANDS for
infants with prenatal substance exposure. For example, when child protection services
(CPS) or Family Services (FSD) are not involved, we are currently relying on hospital staff
to remember to fax a notification to us at FSD. This information is then tracked in an Excel
spreadsheet. Vermont is however in the process of rolling out a new database that will make
collecting this information easier and less cumbersome to hospital staff. When CPS/FSD are
involved due to safety issues, our current antiquated data system has many limitations and
Vermont (continued)
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 procedures regarding reporting
or tracking of infants with prenatal substance exposure during the pandemic.
Fatalities
DCF FSD is part of Vermont’s Child Fatality Review Team, which is housed under the Dept.
of Health. This team reviews all unnatural child fatalities and provides annual data to the leg-
islature, striving to make recommendations related to themes which arise. Due to the impact
of COVID-19 and the related responsibilities for the Dept. of Health, this team was only able
to meet periodically in 2020. Most of the agendas were aimed at keeping members and their
respective agencies informed of any ongoing activities or changes.
DCF FSD is a member of the National Partnership for Child Safety, which is now a 21-juris-
diction collaborative with support from Casey Family Programs. As part of our collaboration
with NPCS, Vermont has developed the Safe System Learning Review; a child death review
process which utilizes the Safe Systems Improvement Tool and seeks to create a psychologi-
cally safe process for staff as well as one that promotes system wide improvement over
individually based fault finding.
Perpetrators
For sexual abuse, perpetrators include noncaregiver perpetrators of any age. The NCANDS
category of “other” perpetrator relationship includes the state categories of stepparent, foster
sibling, and grandparent. In addition, any perpetrator that is captured using the stand-alone
code of other relationship within the database will fall into this category.
Services
Following an investigation or assessment, a validated risk assessment tool is applied. If the
family is classified 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.
During the pandemic, Vermont did implement temporary measures in accordance with staff
and public safety. The state modified social worker contact with children and families guid-
ance to allow for video conferencing visits. The state also issued guidance to our contracted
in-home services providers to ensure that safety protocols and expectations were clear.

Virginia
Contact Shannon Hartung Phone 804–726–7554
Title Program Manager Child Protective Services Email [email protected]

Division of Family Services
Address Virginia Department of Social Services

801 East Main Street, 11th Floor
Richmond, VA 23219
General
The Governor declared a state of emergency on March 12, 2020, declared family services
specialist as essential personnel on March 25, 2020, and issued a Stay-at-Home order on March
30, 2020 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. VDSS and local departments moved quickly
to ensure the continuation of protective services. During the initial COVID-19 crisis phase,
VDSS felt it was critical to effectively prioritize and streamline efforts and energy to address
emergency tasks. VDSS worked to alleviate the burden falling on LDSS that provide critical
services in our communities. VDSS prioritized efforts to provide critical guidance, resources
and supports to the field through collaborative efforts and partnerships to address the unique
risks and challenges of the pandemic. VDSS produced job aids for conducting home visits dur-
ing a pandemic; procured and provided a HIPAA compliant virtual visit platform and created
resources to guide the field on virtual visits. VDSS created resources on supporting children,
families and workers in navigating crisis and worked with partners to ensure prevention mes-
saging was disseminated and made available to community members and professionals.
VDSS provided resources to the local departments including ongoing FAQ, tools and tip sheets,
broadcast communications, self-care resources, and technological resources. VDSS compiled
a resource list for parents and caregivers to collectively ensure well-being and safety for all
children and families. While acknowledging this unprecedented time and acknowledging the
impact of stress, anxiety, and isolation, the list provided vetted resources in the following areas:
economic relief, financial and housing assistance, physical distancing practices, educational
and learning from home support, and self-care. VDSS also created a campaign to address the
concerns of family violence during the period of social isolation. Public service announcements
included a series social media posts and the creation of flyers that were provided to community
partners and LDSS to share across Virginia to assist families with needed resources. The
social media post and flyers provided the hotline numbers for Child Protective Services, Adult
Protective Services and Family Violence and Sexual Assault. VDSS strengthened existing
partnerships in targeted and intentional ways during this pandemic, including leveraging
relationships and collaborative opportunities with multiple other state agencies, advocate
partner organizations, LDSS stakeholders, and nonprofit providers and partners. In this way,
our resources, guidance and tools for the field were able to be directly responsive to the rapidly
changing needs of our workforce and communities during the crisis.
There were two substantial changes to the Code of Virginia in 2020. First, the Code of Virginia
was amended to change the retention for unfounded investigations from 1 to 3 years. Second, of
the Code of Virginia was amended to change the completion timeframe for family assessments
from forty-five to sixty days.
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 assess-
ment. Virginia reports data from both pathways to NCANDS.
Child Maltreatment 2020
A ppendix d: State Commentary 284
Virginia (continued)
The Virginia Administrative Code defines Family assessment as the collection 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 arrange-
ments may be made in consultation with the caretaker of the child.
The Virginia Administrative Code defines “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 indi-
cated 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 finding of either founded or unfounded based on the facts collected during the
investigation
Reports
Virginia’s State Hotline continued operations as normal. COVID-19 related screening questions
were added to the intake narrative script and recorded for all referrals. Virginia did not make
any changes to screening procedures for child protective services. Virginia did not experience
notable staff reductions due to the pandemic. Most of the local departments have closed offices
to the public and maintain contact virtually and by phone. Several of the smaller local depart-
ments had to close due to staff that tested positive for the virus. When the department closed,
case work was covered by other local departments nearby.
After a 40 percent drop in total referrals received in April and May of 2020, compared to the
same months in 2019, the gap in referral volumes grew smaller during summer months but
started to widen again (around 10 percent to 15 percent fewer referrals in summer, 21 percent
fewer referrals received in September, compared to the same months the previous year).
Comparing allegation proportions among validated referrals since March 2020 to June 2019:
■ Medical neglect allegations decreased in prevalence.
■ Mental abuse/neglect and sexual abuse increased in prevalence.
■ The prevalence of physical neglect remained relatively constant during these periods.
Children
After receiving guidance from the Administration for Children and Families, Virginia
contracted with Doxy.me. VDSS invested funds to provide this solution free to local depart-
ments and all family services specialists who have been issued an Apple iPad. Doxy.me is
the only VDSS approved software for virtual face-to-face visits as it is HIPAA and HITECH
Virginia (continued)
compliant to enable the agency to comply with state and federal privacy and security laws and
standards. Instructions were provided to family services specialists on how to set up an account
and how to document visitation conducted using Doxy.me in the case management system.
Approximately 66 percent of family services specialists who responded to a survey indicated
less than 80 percent of their contacts with clients were virtually.
Fatalities
Virginia did not make any policy related to child fatality reviews; however, regional meetings
were suspended for several months at the onset of the lockdown and resumed virtually in
September of 2020.
Perpetrators
Virginia reports noncaregiver perpetrators of sex trafficking to NCANDS as the Code of
Virginia says:
A valid report or complaint regarding a child who has been identified as a victim
of sex trafficking or severe forms of trafficking as defined in the federal Trafficking
Victims Protection Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C § 7102 et seq.) and in the federal Justice
for Victims of Trafficking 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
As compared to FFY 2019, the Virginia observed a notable decrease in the reported number
of children who received services in FFY 2020, aimed at preventing child abuse and neglect
through Promoting Safe and Stable Families funding. Trending back to June 2019, local
department of social services (LDSS) sub-grantee reporting reflected a gradual increase in
the number of family units being served in the Family Support category. This is in contrast
to previous reporting periods which reflected a greater number of children directly served
in the Family Preservation category. As observed in LDSS plan submissions and utilization
reviews, service array identification has been considerably targeted in connecting families
with available community resources and supportive networks to assist parents and caregivers
in the following areas: individual and parent/child counseling, parenting education and skills
training, health related education and awareness, and substance abuse services. Additionally,
LDSS have acknowledged a significant need to support family units in the service array areas
of daycare assistance, housing or other material assistance, financial management services, and
transportation.
Specifically in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been an overall decrease in the
number of children and families served throughout the child welfare continuum, particularly in
the months of March–September 2020; however, those numbers are beginning to rise, and we
anticipate the need for PSSF funding will continue to be increased.

Washington
Contact Lisa Barber Phone 360–902–8031
Title Report Design/Development Email [email protected]

Office of Innovation, Alignment, and Accountability
Address Washington State Department of Children, Youth, and Families

1500 Jefferson Street
Olympia, WA 98504
General
CPS risk-only intakes involve a child whose circumstances places him or her at imminent
risk of serious harm without any specific allegations of abuse or neglect. When CPS risk-only
intakes are screened in, the 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 findings 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 maltreat-
ment. But because CPS Risk-Only intakes do receive a full investigation it has been requested
that they be included to provide an accurate reflection 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
During 2012, Washington’s Children’s Administration (CA) actively prepared for the start
of a new CPS differential response pathway called family assessment response (FAR) as the
demonstration project for Washington’s IVE Waiver. This preparation included eliminating
the alternative response (10-day response intakes) and developing 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 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 allega-
tions 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 began in
January 2014 in three offices and has been phased-in across the state as of June 2017. Up until
FFYs 2013–2014, alternative response (10-day response) was assigned to intakes containing
low-risk allegations. Services were offered to families with children through community-based
contracted providers.
Reports
To be screened-in for CPS intervention, intakes must meet sufficiency. Washington’s suf-
ficiency 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.

Washington (continued)
Intakes that do not meet one 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 enforcement
jurisdiction where the alleged crime occurred. CPS Risk Only intakes receive an Investigation
with a 24 or 72-hour response.
Intakes screened to the FAR pathway do not receive a CPS finding. Additionally, FAR intakes
are mapped as alternative response non-victim in NCANDS and don’t receive findings on alle-
gations, so the maltreatment types are currently mapped to the NCANDS category of “other”
maltreatment types. In FFY 2015, there was a significant increase in intakes screened to the
FAR pathway from FFY 2014, thus eliminating a large pool of victims receiving a finding. 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
offices implementing FAR and due to additional training and consultation on the SDM intake
screening tool and FAR pathway. Prior to full implementation of FAR, for offices 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 implementa-
tion 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 significant 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 Department of Licensed Resources (DLR), CPS, and DLR-CPS risk-only intakes alleg-
ing, abuse or neglect of 18–21 year olds in facilities licensed or certified 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 allegedly 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 findings will be recorded, and the record will be included in the NCANDS Child
File. For intakes containing child abuse and neglect allegations, response times are determined
based on the sufficiency screen and intake screening tool. Response times of 24 hours or 72
hours are determined based on the imminent risk assessed by the intake worker.
During the pandemic, DCYF saw a significant decline in the number of reported calls into the
agency’s intake line, most especially early in the public health emergency when schools closed.
On average, the intake line sees a decline in calls around the summer months when school is
out of session and children are on break, and an even greater decline during the December
holiday break. The initial drop in maltreatment intakes weekly called into the state hotline
following the governor’s initial Stay Home/Stay Healthy order was similar to the dip seen in
December holiday break of most years. Intake numbers recovered a bit during the summer
months.

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
identified 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 findings category. The NCANDS category of neglect includes medical
neglect.
An analysis of common risk factors found for Washington State families involved in CPS
since 2009 have shown an increase in negative outcomes over time. The risk factors are parent
criminality, parent mental illness, parent substance abuse, family economic stress, domestic
violence and family homelessness. In addition to the increase in negative outcomes, the fami-
lies have more risk factors per individual family than in previous years. Negative outcomes are
recurrence, 90-day placement rate, founded rate and families with a new founded or child(ren)
placed within 365 days of investigation completion. This may assist in explaining the increased
number of CPS intakes overall and a substantial increase in the number of 24-hour response
times for CPS investigations.
During the pandemic, the state investigations of CPS intakes continued to be done in person,
not virtually. Additionally, the timeframes were not altered due to COVID. Unless a person was
ill in the house, workers still interacted with the family in person.
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 finding of abuse or neglect. Washington
only reports fatalities in the Agency File.
Children’s Administration (CA) 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 shelved 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.
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 field 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
trafficking. These are screened out as a 3rd 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, Head Start and the Parent-
Child Assistance Program, contracted services, 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 reconcili-
ation 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).

West Virginia
Contact Stephanie Lindley Phone 304–558–5864
Title Functional Manager Email [email protected]
Address WV Department of Health and Human Services

1 Davis Square, Suite 200
Charleston, WV 25301

Wisconsin
Contact Wendy Henderson Phone 608–422–6989
Title Division of Safety and Permanence Email [email protected]
Address Wisconsin Department of Children and Families

201 West Washington Avenue
Madison, WI 53703
General
There were no significant state policy changes that affect the data submission. Certain
counties in Wisconsin have implemented Alternative Response (AR). Maltreatment disposi-
tion for AR assessments result in identifying whether services are needed and will appear in
NCANDS as alternative response nonvictim dispositions.
Reports
The state data are child-based where each report is associated with a single child. The
report date refers to the date when the agency was notified of the alleged maltreatment and
the investigation start date refers to the date when the agency made initial contact with the
child or other family member. In Wisconsin’s child protective services (CPS) system, several
maltreatment reports for a single child may be assessed in a single investigation.
The first months (March, April, May) of the pandemic saw a sharp drop off in CPS reports
as compared to 2019. The number of CPS reports trended upward over the summer, but
remained low through the course of the fall and winter as compared to the previous year.
A large reason for the drop in reports was due to the 60 percent decrease in reporting from
educational personnel over the year.
There were no changes made to Access functions during the pandemic. People were able to
report suspected maltreatment at any time. No changes to policy or procedures were made
related to screening due to the pandemic. Workers still conducted investigations and made
face-to-face contact as necessary.
Children
When a child has been determined to be a victim of abuse or neglect a substantiation finding
is made. The NCANDS unsubstantiated maltreatment disposition includes instances where
the allegation of maltreatment was unsubstantiated for that child, as well as instances where
a maltreatment determination cannot be made because critical sources of information cannot
be found or accessed.
No changes to policies were made related to conducting investigations and assessments due
to the pandemic. Our state continued to conduct investigations and assessments through face-
to-face contact as well as through a combination of phone and video calls. All initial contact
for investigations, as well as any contact necessary to ensure 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 contact for
the purposes of information gathering and assessing during the pandemic.

Wisconsin (continued)
Fatalities
The count of fatalities includes only those children who were subjects of reports of abuse
or neglect in which the maltreatment allegation was substantiated. No agency other than
Wisconsin Department of Children and Families is involved in compiling and reporting child
maltreatment fatality information; all fatalities are reported in the Child File.
Perpetrators
Perpetrator and perpetrator detail is included for allegations of maltreatment that were
substantiated. The NCANDS category “other” perpetrator relationship includes perpetra-
tors who are not primary or secondary caregivers to the child (i.e. non-caregivers) such as
another child or peer to the child victim, or a stranger. As described above, there are no
substantiation findings in AR cases, so the alleged perpetrators in AR cases will not show up
as substantiated perpetrators.
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 file to
incorporate services reporting for future data submissions.

Wyoming
Contact Brian DeTavernier Phone 307–777–6348
Title Social Service Analyst Email [email protected]

Social Services Division
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 identified 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 identified risk factors that indicate the
need for services to prevent abuse and/or neglect. Non-victims are identified and reported to
NCANDS through the assessment and Prevention Tracks. No changes were made to policy
or programs during the COVID pandemic. Procedures for field 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 a decrease in the number of referrals for abuse/neglect due to children being
confined in their homes due to COVID restrictions and the children not being seen for
observation. Contact made with a child due to a referral was made with social distancing in
place. Workers did not enter a home but rather met with families outside of their homes while
taking every precaution necessary to limit the possibility of exposure to the family members
involved.
Children
Wyoming did not change policy related to investigations and assessments. However, the
procedure in the investigation and assessment process was modified so that face to face
contact made with families was conducted with social distancing. Workers were provided
with the necessary PPE to safely conduct these visits. Workers did not enter a home but rather
met with families outside of their homes to conduct the investigations and assessments while
taking every precaution necessary to limit the possibility of exposure to the family mem-
bers involved. Wyoming is unable to determine time spent on an investigation to the final
determination or to determine prenatal substance exposure as the SACWIS does not collect
specific information regarding incidents.
Fatalities
Wyoming did not change any policies related to child fatality reviews. The Child Death
Review team met virtually to conduct their investigations during the COVID pandemic.

Perpetrators
Wyoming utilizes a SACWIS that is incident based and does not have the ability to catego-
rize incidents to see trends.
Services
Wyoming had a reduction in Services Responses due to the reduction in referrals during the
COVID pandemic. Contact made with families took place with social distancing guidelines
in place. Workers were provided with the necessary PPE to safely conduct investigations
and assessments. Workers do not enter a home but rather meet with all members of families
outside of their homes to conduct the investigations and assessments. Services provided to
families have been impacted due to COVID as many of the facilities were closed to in-person
visits and did not implement virtual appointments until latter in the year. Virtual services
were also impacted due to the lack of technology with some families.

Child Maltreatment Report 2020, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Child Maltreatment Report 2020, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Child Maltreatment Report 2020, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Child Maltreatment

U.S. Department of Health & Human Services

Public Domain Notice

Questions and More Information

Letter from the Associate Commissioner:

rounded number of victims in 2020 (618,000) also shows a decrease.

Child Maltreatment 2020

Child Maltreatment 2020 Acknowledgements iii

According to comments provided by states in appendix D, many Hotlines transitioned to

2 Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 virus.

Letter from the AssociAte commissioner ii

chiLd Abuse And negLect dAtA during the PAndemic iv

Child Maltreatment 2020 Contents v

chAPter 7: Special Focus 94

APPendix A: CAPTA Data Items 117

APPendix b: Glossary 119

APPendix c: State Characteristics 137

APPendix d: State Commentary 145

Child Maltreatment 2020 Contents vi

Child Maltreatment 2020 Contents vii

Child Maltreatment 2020 Contents viii

Child Maltreatment 2020 Summary ix

What data are collected?

Where are the data available?

How many allegations of maltreatment are reported and screened

Child Maltreatment 2020 Summary x

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

Who were the child victims?

What were the most common types of maltreatment?

How many infants with prenatal substance exposure are there?

Child Maltreatment 2020 Summary xi

What risk factors do caregivers have?

How many children died from abuse or neglect?

Who abused and neglected children?

trators are male.

(20.8%), and Hispanic (20.1%).

Child Maltreatment 2020 Summary xii

received post-response services.

What is the Special Focus chapter?

Child Maltreatment 2020 Summary xiii

Child Maltreatment 2020 Summary xiv

3,925,000 million* REFERRALS alleging maltreatment

54.2% Referrals SCREENED IN2

3,145,000 million^ CHILDREN received

618,000 ^ VICTIMS 2,527,000 ^ NONVICTIMS3,4

357,057 VICTIMS5 802,237 NONVICTIMS4,5

124,360 VICTIMS6 48,719 NONVICTIMS4,6

victims from the unique count of children.

Child Maltreatment 2020 Summary xv

children and families.

Child Maltreatment 2020 chAPter 1: Introduction 1

Annual Data Collection Process

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

Child Maltreatment 2020 chAPter 1: Introduction 2

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

Child Maltreatment 2020 chAPter 1: Introduction 3

Structure of the Report

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

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