National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect Data System

National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect Data System The National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect (NCCAN), through a cooperative and voluntary federal and state partnership, developed the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS) (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1997). An annual report from these findings has been issued since 1990. The scope of the data collection is somewhat different from that of the NIS-3 (Sedlak & Broadhurst, 1996). Whereas the NIS-3 surveys child protective services agencies and other professionals, the NCANDS study gathers data only from child protective services agencies. Like the NIS-3, however, the NCANDS statistics are seriously biased towards perpetrators in a caretaking role. Indeed, only 5% of all perpetrators in this study were not caretakers. The NCANDS survey gathers two levels of information, the Summary Data Component (SDC), which “is a compilation of 15 key aggregate indicators of State child abuse and neglect statistics” (p. 1–l), and the Detailed Case Data Component, which is a compilation of information on case-level data. Incidence rates derive from the SDC collection effort. Of 1,820,608 cases of alleged abuse or neglect screened in for investigation in 1998, 29% were substantiated or indicated.1 Of all cases of child abuse and neglect, approximately 13% were cases of sexual abuse, for an incidence rate of 1.6/1,000 (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2000c). This incidence rate has declined from 2.3/1,000 in 1990.

The Annual Fifty State Survey is initiated by the National Committee to Prevent Child
Abuse (NCPCA) (Wang & Daro, 1997). Like the data collected through the NCANDS
(U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1997), NCPCA data are
aggregated at the level of the state using data gathered from state child protective
services agencies. The study provides the incidence and characteristics of child abuse
reports, child fatalities, and interdepartmental changes regarding funding and the
scope of services.
To obtain these data, a preliminary letter is sent to each state liaison, followed
by telephone contact. For the 1996 data, 46 states provided at least partial data, 39 of
which provided data for reported cases and 37 of which provided data for substantiated
cases. Only 25 states were able to provide breakdowns by type of abuse (Wang &
Daro, 1997).
Even for the responding states, methods of gathering data varied widely by
state. For example, the method of categorizing reported abuse differed, with some
states gathering data by family and others gathering data by incident (Wang & Daro,
1997). In addition, some states counted cases as reported only if they had been
investigated. The level of initial screening done by child protective services thus
impacted the number of cases reported. Other procedural variations in substantiated
or indicated cases were noted. For example, standards for maltreatment varied by
state, with some states requiring evidence of harm and other states requiring only
evidence of potential harm. Substantiation rates also varied widely based upon
whether they were reported as a percentage of (a) all cases investigated or (b) all
cases reported. Because of this disparity among states, findings from the NCPCA
data are based upon projections of estimated change from the previous year to the
current year for those states reporting in the previous and current years.
The Fifty State Survey estimated that 3,126,000 cases of child abuse were
reported to child protective services in 1996, 969,000 (31%) of which were
substantiated. Of reported cases, 7% were of sexual abuse; of substantiated cases, 9%
were of sexual abuse (Wang & Daro, 1997). Although numbers are not given, these
data suggest that approximately 218,820 cases of child sexual abuse were reported,
87,210 ofwhich were substantiated, for an incidence rate of 1.3/1,000 children.