This project undertook the systematic collection of first-generation data concerning the nature, extent, and seriousness of child sexual exploitation (CSE) in the United States. The project was organized around the following research objectives: (1) identification of the nature, extent, and underlying causes of CSE and the commercial sexual exploitation of children (CSEC) occurring in the United States, (2) identification of those subgroups of children that were at the greatest risk of being sexually exploited, (3) identification of subgroups of adult perpetrators of sex crimes against children, and (4) identification of the modes of operation and other methods used by organized criminal units to recruit children into sexually exploitative activities. The study involved surveying senior staff members of nongovernment organizations (NGOs) and government organizations (GOs) in the United States known to be dealing with persons involved in the transnational trafficking of children for sexual purposes. Part 1 consists of survey data from nongovernment organizations. These were local child and family agencies serving runaway and homeless youth. Part 2 consists of survey data from government organizations. These organizations were divided into local, state, and federal agencies. Local organizations included municipal law enforcement, county law enforcement, prosecutors, public defenders, and corrections. State organizations included state child welfare directors, prosecutors, and public defenders. Federal organizations included the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Federal Public Defenders, Immigration and Naturalization Service, United States Attorneys, United States Customs, and the United States Postal Service. Variables in Parts 1 and 2 include the organization's city, state, and ZIP code, the type of services provided or type of law enforcement agency, how the agency was funded, the scope of the agency's service area, how much emphasis was placed on CSEC as a policy issue or a service issue, conditions that might influence the number of CSEC cases, how staff were trained to deal with CSEC cases, how victims were identified, the number of children that experienced child abuse, sexual abuse, pornography, or other exploitation in 1999 and 2000 by age and gender, methods of recruitment, family history of victims, gang involvement, and substance abuse history of victims.

Child Fatalities by Submission Type

  Description

Counts and rates of child fatalities by file submission type for the most recent federal fiscal year for which data are available. To view more National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS) findings, click link to summary page below: https://healthdata.gov/stories/s/kaeg-w7jc

  Dataset Details

Publisher: U.S. Department of Health & Human Services Last Modified: 2024-06-28 Contact: HealthData.gov Team… See the full description on the dataset page: https://huggingface.co/datasets/HHS-Official/child-fatalities-by-submission-type.

Types of Abuse, Neglect and Financial Exploitation - A single APS case can have more than one allegation. Neglect is the failure to provide the protection, food, shelter, or care necessary to avoid emotional harm or physical injury. The alleged perpetrator of the neglect may be the victim or the victim's caregiver. There are three types of neglect allegations: Physical Neglect, Medical Neglect, and Mental Health Neglect. Other allegation types include: Financial Exploitation, Physical Abuse, Emotional or Verbal Abuse, or Sexual Abuse. The population totals do not match prior DFPS Data Books, printed or ontline. Past population estimates are adjusted based on the U.S. Census data as it becomes available. This is important to keep the data in line with current best practices, but will cause some past counts, such as Abuse/Neglect Victims per 1,000 Texas Children, to be recalculated. Population Data Source - Population Estimates and Projections Program, Texas State Data Center, Office of the State Demographer and the Institute for Demographic and Socioeconomic Research, The University of Texas at San Antonio. Current population estimates and projections for all years from 2014 to 2023 as of December 2023. Visit dfps.state.tx.us for information on all DFPS programs.

Child Protective Investigations (CPI) is authorized to investigate abuse and neglect allegedly committed by a person responsible for a child's care, custody or welfare and to protect abused and neglected children from further harm. This authorization is derived from the U.S. Social Securities Act, Texas Family Code, Human Resources Code, Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, Indian Child Welfare Act and the Adam Walsh Act. CPI conducts either a traditional investigation or Alternative Response (AR). Both require CPI to assess safety and take needed actions to protect a child and assess the risk of future abuse or neglect in the foreseeable future. AR, however, allows for a more flexible, family engaging approach on lower priority cases involving alleged victims who are age 6 or older. AR differs from traditional investigations in that there is no substantiation of allegations, no entry of perpetrators into the Central Registry (a repository for reports of child abuse and neglect), and there a heightened focus on guiding the family to plan for safety in a way that works for them and therefore sustains the safety. Completed investigations only include those cases conducted as a traditional investigation that were not administratively closed or merged into another stage. An investigation can only be administratively closed if all allegations have a disposition of administrative closure. A completed investigation can include more than one alleged victim. Completed investigations do not include any Alternative Response cases. A description of Alternative Response and how it differs from a traditional investigation is in the glossary. FOOTNOTES An investigation represents a report of abuse or neglect and can involve multiple children. The data on completed investigations does not include investigative stages that were administratively closed or merged into another investigation. All completed investigations have a case disposition and a risk finding. Visit dfps.state.tx.us for information on Abuse/Neglect Investigations and all DFPS programs.

Abstract (en): These data examine the relationships between childhood abuse and/or neglect and later criminal and violent criminal behavior. In particular, the data focus on whether being a victim of violence and/or neglect in early childhood leads to being a criminal offender in adolescence or early adulthood and whether a relationship exists between childhood abuse or neglect and arrests as a juvenile, arrests as an adult, and arrests for violent offenses. For this data collection, adult and juvenile criminal histories of sampled cases with backgrounds of abuse or neglect were compared to those of a matched control group with no official record of abuse or neglect. Variables contained in Part 1 include demographic information (age, race, sex, and date of birth). In Part 2, information is presented on the abuse/neglect incident (type of abuse or neglect, duration of the incident, whether the child was removed from the home and, if so, for how long, results of the placement, and whether the individual was still alive). Part 3 contains family information (with whom the child was living at the time of the incident, family disruptions, and who reported the abuse or neglect) and data on the perpetrator of the incident (relation to the victim, age, race, sex, and whether living in the home of the victim). Part 4 contains information on the charges filed within adult arrest incidents (occasion for arrest, multiple counts of the same type of charge, year and location of arrest, and type of offense or charge), and Part 5 includes information on the charges filed within juvenile arrest incidents (year of juvenile charge, number of arrests, and type of offense or charge). The unit of analysis for Parts 1 through 3 is the individual at age 11 or younger, for Part 4 the charge within the adult arrest incident, and for Part 5 the charge within the juvenile arrest incident. ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection: Performed recodes and/or calculated derived variables.; Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes.. All children under 12 years of age during the period 1967-1972 in a metropolitan area in the Midwest. Prospective cohorts research design matched with a control group cohort. 2006-01-12 All files were removed from dataset 6 and flagged as study-level files, so that they will accompany all downloads.2005-11-04 On 2005-03-14 new files were added to one or more datasets. These files included additional setup files as well as one or more of the following: SAS program, SAS transport, SPSS portable, and Stata system files. The metadata record was revised 2005-11-04 to reflect these additions. Funding insitution(s): United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. National Institute of Justice (86-IJ-CX-0033). (1) The data contain duplicate case numbers. (2) Parts 2 and 3 appear to contain a large amount of missing data. (3) The data apply only to reported and substantiated cases of childhood victimization. (4) Misdemeanor criminal behavior for individuals may not show up in the records checked.

These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they were received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except for the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompanying readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collection and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed. The purpose of this study was to conduct content and process evaluations of current internet safety education (ISE) program materials and their use by law enforcement presenters and schools. The study was divided into four sub-projects. First, a systematic review or "meta-synthesis" was conducted to identify effective elements of prevention identified by the research across different youth problem areas such as drug abuse, sex education, smoking prevention, suicide, youth violence, and school failure. The process resulted in the development of a KEEP (Known Elements of Effective Prevention) Checklist. Second, a content analysis was conducted on four of the most well-developed and long-standing youth internet safety curricula: i-SAFE, iKeepSafe, Netsmartz, and Web Wise Kids. Third, a process evaluation was conducted to better understand how internet safety education programs are being implemented. The process evaluation was conducted via national surveys with three different groups of respondents: Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task Force commanders (N=43), ICAC Task Force presenters (N=91), and a sample of school professionals (N=139). Finally, researchers developed an internet safety education outcome survey focused on online harassment and digital citizenship. The intention for creating and piloting this survey was to provide the field with a research-based tool that can be used in future evaluation and program monitoring efforts.

This dataset contains measures of the number and density of social services, such as community centers, child and youth services, services for the elderly and persons with disabilities, meal delivery programs, substance abuse counseling, day care services, and more per United States Census Tract or ZIP Code Tabulation Area (ZCTA) from 1990 through 2021. The dataset includes four separate files for four different geographic areas (GIS shapefiles from the United States Census Bureau). The four geographies include:Census Tract 2010Census Tract 2020 ZIP Code Tabulation Area (ZCTA) 2010ZIP Code Tabulation Area (ZCTA) 2020 Information about which dataset to use can be found in the Usage Notes section of this document.

The National Survey of Children's Exposure to Violence (NatSCEV) series involved three rounds of data collection, NatSCEV I (baseline), this study NatSCEV II, and NatSCEV III. For more information on other parts to the series, please use the following links: NatSCEV I (ICPSR 35203) - http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR35203.v1 NatSCEV III (ICPSR 36523) - http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR36523.v1 The National Survey of Children's Exposure to Violence II was designed to obtain lifetime and one-year incidence estimates of a comprehensive range of childhood victimizations across gender, race, and developmental stage. Conducted between March, 2011 and January, 2012, it assessed the experiences of a nationally representative sample of 4,503 children aged 1 month to 18 years living in the contiguous United States (excluding New Hampshire). A nationwide sample which excluded any phone numbers with area codes assigned within the state of New Hampshire was constructed using four frames: (1) 801,317 landline telephone numbers from which telephone households could be drawn by random digit dialing (RDD); (2) 5,000 cell-phone telephone numbers from which a sample of cell phone users could be drawn by RDD; (3) an address-based sample (ABS) of 70,924 cell phone and residential numbers; and (4) a pre-screened sample of 3,573 telephone numbers of households with children from a recent national RDD survey. The compiled frame yielded 3,259 residential RDD interviews, 31 cell phone RDD interviews, 750 ABS interviews, and 463 pre-screened sample interviews for a total of 4,503 interviews. A short interview was conducted with an adult caregiver (usually a parent) to obtain family demographic information. One child was randomly selected from all eligible children in a household by selecting the child with the most recent birthday. If the selected child was 1 month to 9 years old, the main interview was conducted with the caregiver. If the selected child was 10-17 years old, the main interview was conducted with the child. The survey used an enhanced version of the Juvenile Victimization Questionnaire (JVQ), an inventory of childhood victimization. This version of the JVQ obtains reports on 53 forms of offenses against youth that cover six general areas of concern including: conventional crime, child maltreatment, peer and sibling victimization, sexual victimization, witnessing and indirect victimization, and internet victimization. Follow-up questions for each victimization item gathered additional information about the victimization incident.

To examine prevalence of verbal, physical, and sexual abuses in young elite athletes, a cross sectional questionnaire-based survey was conducted during the World Athletics under 20 World Championships. This questionnaire aimed at distinguishing between abuses perpetrated in the context of Athletics from those which were unrelated to Athletics. Four hundred and eighty athletes (52.3%, male) from North America, South America, Europe, Africa, Asia, and Oceania took part in the electronic anonymous survey. Outside Athletics setting, no gender difference was found for the prevalence of verbal, physical, and sexual abuses. However, 45 males (18% of the male population) and 34 females (15% of the female population) athletes reported sexual abuse. Asian athletes reported a slightly higher rate of sexual abuse; three quarters of them being non-touching abuses. Inside Athletics setting, no gender difference was found for the prevalence of verbal, physical, and non-touching sexual abuses. However, 58 males (23%) and 47 females (21%) reported verbal abuses. Thirty-one males (12%) and 20 females (9%) reported physical abuses, whereas 30 males (12%) and 17 females (7%) reported sexual abuses. Physical abuses were slightly more frequent in Asia and in Africa and less frequent in South America. Sexual abuses inside Athletics also differed over regions, and were unexpectedly twice more frequent than expected in Asia and slightly less frequent than expected in Europe. Friends and partners were identified as the more frequent (>50%) abusers outside or inside the Athletics settings, whereas outside Athletics and inside Athletics, coaches were identified as sexual abuse perpetrators in 8 and 25% of cases, respectively. The prevalence of verbal, physical, or sexual abuses is high but consistent with what has been reported in United Kingdom, Norway, Canada, and Sweden at national level in recreational or elite athletes. Sexual abuse, including touching or penetrative abuses, occurred significantly more often in male athletes when compared to female athletes. This finding invites healthcare and social workers, and policymakers to also consider the risk of sexual abuse of young male athletes in Athletics. These results also call for longitudinal studies on young elite athletes.

To examine prevalence of verbal, physical, and sexual abuses in young elite athletes, a cross sectional questionnaire-based survey was conducted during the World Athletics under 20 World Championships. This questionnaire aimed at distinguishing between abuses perpetrated in the context of Athletics from those which were unrelated to Athletics. Four hundred and eighty athletes (52.3%, male) from North America, South America, Europe, Africa, Asia, and Oceania took part in the electronic anonymous survey. Outside Athletics setting, no gender difference was found for the prevalence of verbal, physical, and sexual abuses. However, 45 males (18% of the male population) and 34 females (15% of the female population) athletes reported sexual abuse. Asian athletes reported a slightly higher rate of sexual abuse; three quarters of them being non-touching abuses. Inside Athletics setting, no gender difference was found for the prevalence of verbal, physical, and non-touching sexual abuses. However, 58 males (23%) and 47 females (21%) reported verbal abuses. Thirty-one males (12%) and 20 females (9%) reported physical abuses, whereas 30 males (12%) and 17 females (7%) reported sexual abuses. Physical abuses were slightly more frequent in Asia and in Africa and less frequent in South America. Sexual abuses inside Athletics also differed over regions, and were unexpectedly twice more frequent than expected in Asia and slightly less frequent than expected in Europe. Friends and partners were identified as the more frequent (>50%) abusers outside or inside the Athletics settings, whereas outside Athletics and inside Athletics, coaches were identified as sexual abuse perpetrators in 8 and 25% of cases, respectively. The prevalence of verbal, physical, or sexual abuses is high but consistent with what has been reported in United Kingdom, Norway, Canada, and Sweden at national level in recreational or elite athletes. Sexual abuse, including touching or penetrative abuses, occurred significantly more often in male athletes when compared to female athletes. This finding invites healthcare and social workers, and policymakers to also consider the risk of sexual abuse of young male athletes in Athletics. These results also call for longitudinal studies on young elite athletes.