This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-14-42 
entitled "Child Welfare: Federal Agencies Can Better Support State 
Efforts to Prevent and Respond to Sexual Abuse by School Personnel" 
which was released on January 30, 2014. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as 
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. 
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data 
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features, 
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes 
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, 
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format 
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an 
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your 
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or 
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

Report to the Ranking Member, Committee on Education and the 
Workforce, House of Representatives: 

January 2014: 

Child Welfare: 

Federal Agencies Can Better Support State Efforts to Prevent and 
Respond to Sexual Abuse by School Personnel: 

GAO-14-42: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-14-42, a report to the Ranking Member, Committee on 
Education and the Workforce, House of Representatives. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

While all child abuse is troubling, sexual abuse by school personnel 
raises particular concerns because of the trust placed in schools. 
Federal laws prohibit sexual harassment, including sexual abuse, in 
federally-funded education programs and set minimum standards for 
state laws on reporting suspected child abuse. 

GAO was asked to review efforts to address child sexual abuse by 
school personnel. GAO examined: (1) states’ and school districts’ 
steps to help prevent such abuse, (2) their reporting requirements and 
approaches for investigating allegations, and (3) federal agencies’ 
efforts to address such abuse. GAO reviewed relevant federal laws, 
regulations, and guidance; surveyed state educational agencies in 50 
states and the District of Columbia; and visited four states and six 
of their districts. States were selected based on actions taken in 
response to past allegations of abuse. GAO interviewed state agencies, 
school districts, local law enforcement and child protective service 
agencies, and experts identified through a systematic literature 
review. 

What GAO Found: 

To help prevent the sexual abuse of students in public K-12 schools, 
46 of the 50 states and the District of Columbia surveyed by GAO 
required background checks of applicants-—such as teachers or bus 
drivers—-seeking public school employment; however, the methods and 
sources varied widely. Forty-two states established professional 
standards or codes of conduct for school personnel, and 22 of those 
included information on appropriate boundaries between personnel and 
students. Although experts view awareness and prevention training on 
sexual abuse and misconduct as another key prevention tool, only 18 
states reported in the survey that they require school districts to 
provide this training. However, two of six districts GAO visited 
provided training to school personnel, volunteers, and students in 
response to prior allegations of sexual misconduct by school 
personnel. These trainings covered a variety of topics, including 
recognizing the signs of abuse and misconduct. 

According to GAO’s survey, 46 states have laws that require school 
personnel to report child sexual abuse and designate the agency that 
investigates reports (local law enforcement and/or child protective 
services (CPS)), and 43 establish penalties for not reporting. In 
addition, school districts may have their own policies, which can 
sometimes create challenges. For example, three of the six school 
districts GAO visited have policies requiring suspected sexual abuse 
or misconduct to be reported to school administrators. Local 
investigative officials reported that such policies can be confusing, 
as they imply reports should only be made to school officials. This 
can result in a failure to report to the proper law enforcement or CPS 
authorities and interfere with investigations. For example, in one 
case study GAO reviewed, administrators pled guilty to failure to 
report suspected sexual abuse of a student by a teacher, who was later 
convicted of ten counts of abuse. Further, state and local officials 
told GAO that because different agencies can be involved with 
investigating reports of alleged child sexual abuse or misconduct for 
different reasons, each of the agencies’ particular goals may lead to 
potential interference with another agency’s investigation. In three 
of the four states GAO visited, law enforcement and CPS had developed 
methods, such as memorandums of understanding, to minimize this 
potential conflict and share information and expertise to resolve 
cases. 

Relevant programs at the Departments of Education (Education), Health 
and Human Services (HHS) and Justice (Justice) have supported state 
and local efforts to address sexual abuse by school personnel through 
limited training, guidance on boundary setting, and funding for 
collaboration among entities responding to allegations. Federal 
internal controls state that agencies should ensure there are adequate 
means of communicating with and obtaining information from external 
stakeholders who have a significant impact on agency goals. Yet, more 
than 30 of the states that GAO surveyed were not aware of available 
federal resources. No single agency is leading this effort, and 
coordination among federal agencies to leverage their resources and 
disseminate information to assist state and local efforts is limited. 
Further, the prevalence of this type of abuse is not known. Although 
several federal agencies collect related data, none systematically 
identify the extent of sexual abuse by school personnel, and efforts 
to address this data gap are limited. Finally, Education’s regulations 
under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX) require 
schools to have procedures in place to protect students from sexual 
abuse by school personnel. However, local officials told GAO that 
Education’s guidance was limited and they are unsure about how to 
apply these requirements to cases of adult-to-student sexual abuse in 
K-12 settings. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO recommends that Education collaborate with HHS and Justice to 
compile and disseminate information to states; identify a way to track 
the prevalence of sexual abuse; and that Education also clarify and 
disseminate information on how Title IX applies to personnel-to-
student sexual abuse in the K-12 setting. Education and HHS provided 
technical comments and Education concurred with our recommendations. 
Justice had no comments. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-42]. For more 
information, contact Kay Brown at (202) 512-7215 or brownke@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

Most States Use Background Checks and Professional Codes of Conduct as 
Prevention Efforts: 

Reporting and Investigating Often Involves Multiple Agencies As Well 
As School Districts, Which Sometimes Presents Challenges: 

Multiple Federal Agencies Provide Resources to Address Abuse by School 
Personnel, but Coordination and Data Are Limited: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Case Studies: 

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Education: 

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Related GAO Products: 

Table: 

Table 1: Number of State Educational Agencies Aware of Federal 
Resources to Help Prevent and Respond to Sexual Abuse and Sexual 
Misconduct by School Personnel, by Topic: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Continuum of Examples of Possible Behaviors by Perpetrators 
of Child Sexual Abuse: 

Figure 2: Local, State, and Federal Entities That May Be Involved with 
Addressing Cases of Child Sexual Abuse and Misconduct by K-12 School 
Personnel: 

Figure 3: Number of States Requiring Criminal Background Checks for 
Public K-12 School Employment, By Source: 

Figure 4: Number of States Requiring Awareness and Prevention Training 
on Sexual Abuse of Students by School Personnel, by Topic: 

Figure 5: Types, Purpose, and Selected Disciplinary Outcomes of 
Investigations, by Agency Type: 

Abbreviations: 

BJS: Bureau of Justice Statistics: 

CAC: Child Advocacy Center: 

CAPTA: Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act: 

CDC: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: 

CJA: Children's Justice Act: 

CPS: child protective services: 

CRDC: Civil Rights Data Collection: 

Education: Department of Education: 

ESEA: Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965: 

FBI: Federal Bureau of Investigation: 

HHS: Department of Health and Human Services: 

Justice: Department of Justice: 

NASDTEC: National Association of State Directors of Teacher Education 
and Certification: 

NCANDS: National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System: 

NCES: National Center for Education Statistics: 

NCVS: National Crime Victimization Survey: 

OCAN: Office on Child Abuse and Neglect: 

OCR: Office for Civil Rights: 

OJJDP: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention: 

OSHS: Office of Safe and Healthy Students: 

SSOCS: School Survey on Crime and Safety: 

Title IX: Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO:
441 G St. N.W. 
Washington, DC 20548: 

January 27, 2014: 

The Honorable George Miller: 
Ranking Member: 
Committee on Education and the Workforce: 
House of Representatives: 

Dear Mr. Miller: 

Over the last decade, a number of media reports were made across the 
country about sexual abuse[Footnote 1] of students by public K-12 
school personnel. A report prepared for the U.S. Department of 
Education in 2004 stated that nearly 9.6 percent of students are 
victims of sexual abuse by school personnel[Footnote 2]--such as 
teachers, principals, coaches, and school bus drivers--sometime during 
their school career.[Footnote 3] However, the prevalence of sexual 
abuse by school personnel remains unknown, in part, because some cases 
go unreported. Further, the term sexual abuse may not capture the full 
spectrum of the issue. While child sexual abuse typically refers to 
the criminal act of forcing a child to engage in sexual activity with 
the perpetrator, other inappropriate behaviors with children may 
eventually lead to sexual abuse. For example, while not generally 
criminal, behaviors often referred to as "grooming" may be carried out 
by the perpetrator with the aim of establishing trust to facilitate 
future sexual activity with the child. These behaviors could lead to 
sexual misconduct,[Footnote 4] including unwelcome or sexual advances, 
requests for sexual favors, and other verbal, nonverbal, or physical 
conduct of a sexual nature. Further, the growing use of technology and 
social media as a new and convenient way for adults and students to 
interact may pose questions about what interactions between school 
personnel and students are considered appropriate. Early signs of 
inappropriate behavior with a child can be the key to identifying and 
preventing the criminal act of sexual abuse. 

Sexual abuse of students by school personnel raises particular 
concerns because of the trust and responsibility placed with schools 
to ensure a safe and productive learning environment. As research has 
shown, child sexual abuse often has significant detrimental 
consequences on children's physical, psychological, academic, and 
behavioral development.[Footnote 5] States have the primary role in 
ensuring the safety of their citizens. While federal law establishes 
minimum standards for state mandatory reporting laws regarding known 
or suspected child abuse,[Footnote 6] states primarily define their 
own requirements for preventing, reporting, and investigating child 
abuse and neglect, including child sexual abuse. Variations across 
state laws may include who is considered a caretaker, who is mandated 
to report suspected abuse, what must be reported, and to which agency 
reports should be directed. Further, school districts within a state 
(sometimes hundreds per state) can establish policies and procedures 
that go beyond state requirements. In addition, efforts to prevent and 
respond to child sexual abuse by school personnel may involve various 
agencies, such as education, child welfare, and criminal justice, 
[Footnote 7] whose roles and missions differ. You asked us to review 
how states, school districts, and the federal government address child 
sexual abuse by public K-12 school personnel. Our review addresses the 
following questions: 

1. What steps have states and school districts taken to help prevent 
child sexual abuse by school personnel? 

2. What are states' and school districts' reporting requirements and 
approaches to investigating allegations of child sexual abuse by 
school personnel? 

3. To what extent have federal agencies made efforts to prevent and 
respond to child sexual abuse by school personnel? 

To perform this work, we used a number of approaches to help identify 
the steps states, public school districts, and federal agencies have 
taken to prevent, identify, report, and respond to sexual abuse by 
public K-12 school personnel against students. To understand the role 
different levels of government play in addressing these issues, we 
reviewed relevant federal laws, regulations, and policies; interviewed 
officials from a range of federal agencies and organizations including 
the Departments of Education (Education), Health and Human Services 
(HHS), and Justice (Justice); and reviewed relevant federal agency 
documents and existing data sources on child sexual abuse. We also 
interviewed subject matter experts whom we identified through a 
systematic review of available literature on the topic. Such experts 
included officials from a range of relevant organizations, including 
education and child advocacy groups. 

To gather a national overview of states' requirements for identifying, 
reporting, and investigating suspected cases of sexual abuse of 
students by school personnel, we fielded a survey of state educational 
agencies in all 50 states and the District of Columbia from May 7 
through July 25, 2013. All 50 states and the District of Columbia 
completed the survey. Survey responses reflect the status of states' 
requirements at the time of survey completion. The survey included 
questions on state laws and regulations, training, codes of conduct, 
monitoring, guidance, and federal assistance. We also sent one follow-
up question to survey respondents regarding background checks of 
contract employees at public K-12 schools, which received a response 
rate of 94 percent. 

We also visited four states--Georgia, Massachusetts, Virginia, and 
Washington--to gather additional information from public school 
districts, as well as those who investigate cases of sexual abuse and 
misconduct by school personnel, such as officials from state and local 
educational and child protective service agencies, local police 
departments and prosecutor offices, and relevant child advocacy 
organizations. We selected states that had developed laws or 
regulations to address prevention, detection, reporting, and/or 
investigation of child sexual abuse specifically by school personnel. 
We selected a total of six school districts based on information about 
policies and training to address such issues, as well as expert 
recommendations and the proximity of the school district to other 
offices within each state we visited. We spoke with school 
superintendents, attorneys that represent schools, human resources 
personnel, school counselors, and school safety officials, when 
available. We reviewed policies, training materials, and other 
relevant documentation and observed one school district's training 
session on the subject. The results of the site visits are not 
generalizable to all public school districts, state educational and 
child welfare agencies, local police departments and prosecutor 
offices, or relevant child advocacy organizations. 

Finally, GAO's investigative staff reviewed closed criminal cases, 
identified through media and legal database searches, to illustrate 
the complexities of these cases and how incidents of sexual abuse are 
identified, reported, and investigated. We selected cases to achieve 
variation among these criteria: gender of perpetrator and victim, age 
of child/children, whether there were multiple victims of the same 
perpetrator, and the position of the perpetrator in the school 
(teacher, school administrators, bus driver, janitor, etc.). Our 
investigators reviewed five cases that were determined to be closed, 
with no pending litigation. The case study reviews involved travel to 
several states and interviews with agencies and individuals involved 
in each case as well as case file reviews. Case studies were conducted 
from May through July 2013. See appendix II for summaries of the case 
studies. 

We conducted this performance audit from October 2012 to January 2014 
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on the audit objectives. We believe 
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. Our 
investigative activities were conducted in accordance with standards 
prescribed by the Council of the Inspectors General for Integrity and 
Efficiency. 

Background: 

Behaviors of Perpetrators of Child Sexual Abuse: 

While child sexual abuse--the act of forcing a child to engage in 
sexual activity with a perpetrator--is generally criminal in nature, 
perpetrators of such abuse typically exhibit other inappropriate, and 
sometimes noncriminal, behaviors. These behaviors of perpetrators may 
be displayed on a continuum and may include grooming, sexual 
misconduct and child sexual abuse. See figure 1. 

Figure 1: Continuum of Examples of Possible Behaviors by Perpetrators 
of Child Sexual Abuse: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

Grooming behaviors: 
* Extra attention paid to a single student (e.g., special tutoring or 
rides home); 
* Gifts or favors to a student’s family. 

Sexual misconduct: 
* Use of sexual language or gestures; 
* Written or verbal sexual advances; 
* Sharing of sexual photos or videos. 

Sexual abuse: 
* Indecent exposure; 
* Sexual contact. 

Source: GAO analysis of information from experts and site visits. 

Note: Definitions of sexual abuse and sexual misconduct may vary from 
state to state. For example, sexual abuse may be defined in general 
terms or by specifying various acts as sexual abuse. For purposes of 
this report, sexual abuse includes any sexual activity involving a 
child that is a crime under applicable state law. Definitions of 
sexual misconduct may also vary by state and include a variety of 
behaviors. For example, sexual misconduct could include any verbal or 
physical activity directed toward a child that is sexual in nature and 
designed to establish a romantic or sexual relationship with the 
child. Grooming behaviors are part of a pattern of behavior and are 
done with the intent to perpetrate future sexual abuse or misconduct, 
but the same behaviors may also be done without such intent. 

[End of figure] 

Entities Involved in Addressing Cases of Child Sexual Abuse and 
Misconduct by School Personnel: 

State and local agencies in the education, child welfare, and criminal 
justice systems lead the efforts to prevent, detect, and respond to 
cases of sexual abuse of and misconduct toward students by public K-12 
school personnel. In accordance with their distinct missions and 
roles, each type of agency plays a part in ensuring the safety and 
protection of children. Three federal agencies with corresponding 
missions support state and local efforts: Education, HHS, and Justice 
(see figure 2). 

Figure 2: Local, State, and Federal Entities That May Be Involved with 
Addressing Cases of Child Sexual Abuse and Misconduct by K-12 School 
Personnel: 

[Refer to PDF for image: concentric circles of entity involvement] 

Core: Victims of child sexual abuse by school personnel. 

Child welfare: 

Local: Local child protective service agencies; 
State: State child protective service agencies; 
Federal: Department of Health and Human Services. 

Education: 
Local: Schools and school districts; 
State: State educational agencies[A]; 
Federal: Department of Education. 

Criminal justice: 
Local: 
* Local law enforcement agencies; 
* District Attorneys’ offices; 
* Local courts; 
State: 
* State law enforcement agencies; 
* State attorneys general; 
* State courts; 
Federal: 
* Department of Justice; 
* Federal courts. 

Source: GAO analysis of information provided by entities. 

Notes: 

The concentric circles in the figure are solely intended to illustrate 
the different levels of government, not the relationship between these 
levels. 

For this review, while we generally found that state and federal 
criminal justice entities had limited involvement with cases of child 
sexual abuse and misconduct by school personnel, it is possible that 
state attorneys general offices, state and federal courts, and state 
and federal law enforcement entities may be involved with such cases. 

[A] State offices of professional licensure, which may be located 
within or separate from state educational agencies, are often involved 
with cases of child sexual abuse and misconduct by school personnel. 

[End of figure] 

K-12 Education: 

Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) enforces Title IX of the 
Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX), which prohibits sex 
discrimination, including sexual harassment, in federally-funded 
education programs and activities.[Footnote 8] According to 
Education's guidance, sexual abuse of students and sexual misconduct 
by school personnel are included in the broad set of behaviors 
prohibited under Title IX.[Footnote 9] Although Title IX is not a 
criminal statute, the behaviors prohibited by Title IX may be criminal 
or noncriminal in nature, depending on state or federal law. 

All public and private education institutions that receive federal 
funds must comply with Title IX. OCR's regulations establish 
procedural requirements for the prevention or correction of sex 
discrimination, including sexual harassment. These requirements 
include issuance of a policy against sex discrimination and adoption 
and publication of grievance procedures providing for prompt and 
equitable resolution of complaints of sex discrimination. The 
regulations also require schools receiving federal funds for education 
programs or activities to designate at least one employee to 
coordinate Title IX compliance, commonly known as a Title IX 
coordinator, whose responsibilities include the coordination of 
investigations of complaints alleging noncompliance.[Footnote 10] OCR 
is responsible for enforcing schools' compliance with Title IX, and if 
it finds a school has violated Title IX as the result of sexual abuse 
or sexual misconduct by school personnel, it will require the school 
to take appropriate remedial steps.[Footnote 11] 

Education's Office of Safe and Healthy Students (OSHS) administers, 
coordinates, and recommends policy for improving programs and 
activities that are designed to provide financial assistance for drug 
and violence prevention activities, among other things.[Footnote 12] 
Specifically, under the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities 
Act--Title IV, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
1965, as amended--OSHS administers several types of programs, 
including grants to public K-12 school districts for a broad range of 
violence prevention activities.[Footnote 13] While the statute does 
not specifically identify who may be considered perpetrators of 
violence for purposes of Title IV grant programs, according to OSHS 
officials, the funded projects have primarily focused on peer-to-peer 
violence. 

Education's National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) is tasked 
with collecting, acquiring, compiling and disseminating full and 
complete statistics on the condition and progress of education at the 
elementary and secondary levels, among other activities.[Footnote 14] 
NCES is required to collect data on the incidence, frequency, 
seriousness, and nature of violence affecting students, including 
information regarding the relationship between victims and 
perpetrators.[Footnote 15] The School Survey on Crime and Safety 
(SSOCS), administered by NCES, is the primary source of school-level 
data on crime and safety. 

At the state level, state educational agencies are responsible for 
complying with federal requirements, such as Title IX, and overseeing 
local school districts' implementation of state and federal 
requirements. Some of these state agencies also play a key role in 
ensuring that professionals, including teachers and other school 
personnel, are qualified to teach in a classroom or operate a school 
by issuing educator licenses.[Footnote 16] The authority to issue 
educator licenses typically resides within state licensure offices, 
which may be found within or outside of the state educational 
agencies. Licensure offices establish and enforce a set of behaviors 
commonly known as a professional code of conduct and oversee the 
discipline of educational practitioners who violate such professional 
codes of conduct. 

At the local level, school districts operate local public elementary 
and secondary schools. In school year 2011 to 2012, over 49.5 million 
students were enrolled in the nation's 98,328 public elementary and 
secondary schools.[Footnote 17] School districts carry out state and 
federal requirements and may have the authority to go beyond any 
minimum requirements and create their own policies regarding how 
schools under their jurisdiction operate. When an allegation of sexual 
abuse or misconduct is reported, the school district and school may 
conduct their own investigations to determine any violations of 
employment conditions, which may result in actions taken against the 
employee, such as termination of employment. 

Child Welfare: 

HHS is the principal federal agency that provides oversight of state 
implementation of federal child welfare requirements. State and local 
child welfare programs are intended, in part, to protect children who 
have been maltreated and help prevent maltreatment. HHS uses the term 
child maltreatment to include neglect and abuse--not only physical and 
emotional abuse but also sexual abuse.[Footnote 18] Initially enacted 
in 1974, the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) 
strengthened federal support for states in preventing and responding 
to child abuse and neglect, which has historically involved cases of 
intra-familial abuse and neglect.[Footnote 19] CAPTA, as amended, 
authorizes federal funding for grants to states to support prevention, 
investigation, and handling of cases of child maltreatment. As a 
condition of receiving federal grant funds under CAPTA, states are 
required to, among other things, have: 

* a state law for mandatory reporting by individuals required to 
report known or suspected child abuse or neglect;[Footnote 20] 

* procedures in place for screening and promptly investigating reports 
of known or suspected child abuse or neglect, and for ensuring 
children's safety;[Footnote 21] 

* a state law or statewide program that includes the cooperation of 
state law enforcement officials, courts with jurisdiction, and 
appropriate state agencies providing human services in the 
investigation, assessment, prosecution and treatment of child abuse 
and neglect;[Footnote 22] and: 

* provisions that grant immunity from prosecution (under state and 
local laws and regulations) for individuals who make good faith 
reports of known or suspected child abuse or neglect.[Footnote 23] 

For those states that apply for and receive Children's Justice Act 
(CJA) grants--authorized under section 107 of CAPTA--the state must 
establish a multidisciplinary (or CJA) taskforce to improve the 
investigation and prosecution of child abuse and neglect cases. 
[Footnote 24] According to HHS, most states have policies that require 
cross-system reporting of at least some child abuse and neglect 
reports, across child protective services, law enforcement agencies, 
and prosecutor's offices, regardless of where the initial report is 
made.[Footnote 25] 

CAPTA 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."[Footnote 26] CAPTA defines sexual abuse to 
include "the employment, use, persuasion, inducement, enticement, or 
coercion of any child to engage in, or assist any other person to 
engage in, any sexually explicit conduct or simulation of such conduct 
for the purpose of producing a visual depiction of such conduct;" or 
"the rape, and in cases of caretaker or inter-familial relationships, 
statutory rape, molestation, prostitution or other forms of sexual 
exploitation of children or incest with children."[Footnote 27] For 
purposes of compliance with CAPTA's requirements, states' definitions 
of "child abuse and neglect" and "sexual abuse" must be consistent 
with the definitions provided by CAPTA; however, states may also 
expand on these definitions in their state laws. For example, state 
law may define who constitutes a "caretaker" and states generally 
include parents, guardians, and day care workers, though states' 
definitions of caretaker may vary. 

In their mandatory reporting laws, states may establish different 
standards for reporting child abuse or neglect and may choose whom to 
include in their definitions of mandatory reporter.[Footnote 28] Those 
designated as mandatory reporters typically have frequent contact with 
children and may include teachers, principals, social workers, and 
other school personnel such as volunteers; physicians, nurses, and 
other health-care workers; counselors, therapists, and other mental 
health professionals; child care providers; medical examiners or 
coroners; and law enforcement officers. 

The 1988 amendments to the CAPTA required HHS to establish a national 
data collection and analysis program for data on child abuse and 
neglect.[Footnote 29] HHS responded to this requirement by 
establishing and maintaining the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data 
System (NCANDS), which is a voluntary data-reporting system. Since at 
least 2000, state child protective service agencies have increasingly 
voluntarily provided data on children who were maltreated to HHS for 
NCANDS. From these data, HHS conducts analysis and publishes a yearly 
Child Maltreatment report. The most recent report, for fiscal year 
2011, presents national data about child abuse and neglect known to 
child protective service agencies in the United States. In addition, 
in accordance with CAPTA's requirements, HHS has established a 
national information clearinghouse--the Child Welfare Information 
Gateway--and conducts research, in consultation with other federal 
agencies and experts, to provide information needed to better protect 
children from child abuse or neglect and to improve the well-being of 
victims.[Footnote 30] 

The Office on Child Abuse and Neglect (OCAN), a division of the 
Children's Bureau within HHS' Administration for Children and 
Families, helps states meet federal CAPTA requirements and takes the 
federal lead in educating states and communities about how to prevent 
and respond to child abuse and neglect. HHS also provides training and 
technical assistance to child welfare systems at the state and local 
levels through the Children's Bureau, its regional offices, and 
various National Resource Centers.[Footnote 31] 

Another office within HHS that focuses on the prevention of violence 
is the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) Division of 
Violence Prevention. The CDC views child maltreatment as a serious 
public health problem with extensive short-and long-term health 
consequences, and seeks to stop the abuse before it occurs. The 
mission of CDC's child maltreatment prevention program is to prevent 
maltreatment and its consequences through surveillance, research and 
development, capacity building, communication, and leadership. These 
priorities guide the agency's approach to child maltreatment, which is 
through the promotion of safe, stable, and nurturing relationships and 
environments between children and their caregivers. 

State child protective service agencies track allegations of child 
sexual abuse and provide support to their local offices, policy 
guidance and clarification, staff training, and case monitoring 
services. Local child protective service (CPS) agencies investigate 
reports of suspected child abuse, including child sexual abuse. Local 
CPS agencies also refer cases to law enforcement agencies or district 
attorneys for criminal investigation and prosecution. 

Criminal Justice: 

Justice--the primary federal criminal investigation and enforcement 
agency--also administers grants and collects data on criminal 
activity.[Footnote 32] Its Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
Prevention (OJJDP) is responsible for providing national leadership, 
coordination, and resources to prevent and respond to juvenile 
delinquency and victimization.[Footnote 33] OJJDP supports states and 
communities in their efforts to develop and implement effective and 
coordinated prevention and intervention programs and to improve the 
juvenile justice system so that it protects public safety, holds 
offenders accountable, and provides treatment and rehabilitative 
services tailored to the needs of juveniles and their families. OJJDP 
administers projects, programs, and initiatives related to crimes 
against children and children's exposure to violence. It provides 
leadership and funding in the areas of prevention, intervention, 
treatment, and enforcement. 

To better understand crime victimization, the Bureau of Justice 
Statistics (BJS) conducts the National Crime Victimization Survey 
(NCVS), the nation's primary source of such information. Each year, 
data are obtained from a nationally representative sample of about 
40,000 households to capture information about the frequency, 
characteristics, and consequences of criminal victimization in the 
United States. The survey consists of interviewing victims (including 
children ages 12 through 18) about exposure to crime, and enables BJS 
to estimate the likelihood of victimization by rape and sexual 
assault, among other crimes, for the population as a whole as well as 
for segments of the population. The NCVS provides the largest national 
forum for victims to describe the impact of crime and characteristics 
of violent offenders. 

At the local level, law enforcement agencies and district attorneys 
are responsible for investigating and prosecuting cases of child 
sexual abuse by school personnel regardless of whether the case was 
referred to them by CPS or some other source. Law enforcement agencies 
and district attorneys generally decide if a case warrants action on 
their part, based on the facts and circumstances of each case. 

Most States Use Background Checks and Professional Codes of Conduct as 
Prevention Efforts: 

Most States Rely on Background Checks to Screen Applicants for 
Positions in Public K-12 Schools but Concerns over Completeness and 
Accuracy Exist: 

Background checks were the primary tool states used to prevent sexual 
abuse and misconduct by school personnel, according to our survey. 
Experts on child sexual abuse we spoke with recommend that schools and 
districts incorporate background checks--typically used to screen for 
criminal or other relevant histories of applicants--into the hiring 
process as part of their efforts to help protect the safety of 
children in school. Forty-six states reported in our survey that they 
required background checks for applicants seeking employment in a 
public K-12 school, regardless of whether the position was as a school 
principal, teacher, or secretary, for example. However, the methods 
and sources used to conduct background checks for school personnel 
varied widely, and included matching an applicant's name and date of 
birth, Social Security number, or fingerprints to state or federal 
criminal databases, or child abuse and neglect registries. According 
to our survey, 36 states relied on both state and federal sources of 
criminal data--such as a state law enforcement database or the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation's Interstate Identification Index[Footnote 
34]--to gather information on applicants (see Figure 3). 

Figure 3: Number of States Requiring Criminal Background Checks for 
Public K-12 School Employment, By Source: 

[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart] 

45[A] states conduct background checks using: 

State and federal law enforcement data: 36 states; 
State law enforcement data only: 6 states; 
Federal law enforcement data only: 3 states; 
Do not require background checks for applicants, regardless of 
position: 5 states. 

Source: GAO analysis of state survey data. 

[A] Of the 46 states requiring background checks for applicants 
seeking employment in public K-12 schools, regardless of position, 45 
identified the use of either state and/or federal law enforcement data 
sources when conducting background checks; one state did not indicate 
the sources used for obtaining background information on applicants. 

[End of figure] 

In addition, nearly half of all states (25) reported consulting the 
National Association of State Directors of Teacher Education and 
Certification (NASDTEC) clearinghouse--a database of information 
voluntarily reported by states on teachers who have lost teaching 
certificates due to abuse or misconduct, according to a NASDTEC 
official.[Footnote 35] 

In addition to screening public school job applicants, some states 
required background checks of other adults who may interact with 
students in public K-12 schools. For example, according to our survey, 
17 states required background checks for school volunteers. In 
addition, 36 states required background checks for contract employees 
working in public K-12 schools, often under certain conditions, such 
as those who may have direct or unsupervised contact with students, or 
for certain positions, such as cafeteria, transportation, janitorial, 
or maintenance workers. According to our survey, 12 states did not 
require background checks for contract employees working in public K-
12 schools. 

Some school districts we visited established their own policies for 
background checks to help safeguard children in their schools. For 
example, in one district, volunteer applicants must complete a 
disclosure form that asks about prior convictions and abuses and 
undergo a background check before serving as a volunteer, even though 
the state, according to our survey, does not require background checks 
for volunteers in its public K-12 schools.[Footnote 36] Another school 
district developed a system to conduct background checks for school 
volunteers and contractors based on their level of contact with 
students, according to officials. Because background checks are 
costly, only those volunteers who may have time alone with children, 
such as a chaperon on an overnight trip, undergo a full state and 
federal criminal history background check, which includes nationwide 
data on federal and state criminal arrests and convictions. 

State and local education officials and industry experts, however, 
have identified limitations to background checks that raise questions 
about the sufficiency of the checks alone to help protect students. In 
our previous work, we noted that criminal history checks on school 
employees may not be adequate when they are not national, fingerprint-
based, or recurring.[Footnote 37] Several education, criminal justice, 
and other officials also raised concerns over the completeness of the 
data available through background checks. For example, 

* Education officials in one state told us that whether a sex offender 
is included in the state's public sex offender registry depends upon 
the local court system, and not all offenders will be identified 
through such a search. 

* Officials in two states cited their inability to access relevant 
data across states, such as another state's child abuse and neglect 
registry, which is problematic when applicants come from other 
locations. 

* Aside from checks of criminal data, a NASDTEC official told us that 
states do not uniformly report information on educators who have been 
disciplined to the NASDTEC clearinghouse. State educational officials 
in each of the four states we visited also said they have identified 
missing, incomplete, or incorrect data in the database. 

* An assistant district attorney expressed concern that federal law 
enforcement databases only capture information on predators who have 
been caught and charged with crimes--a fraction of all sexual 
predators who perpetrate abuses against children. 

* Representatives from a risk management company told us few offenders 
are caught the first time they abuse, and sex offenders often have 
many victims before they are caught. 

Text box: 

Case Study: Background Checks Do Not Pick Up What Is Not Reported: 
A male second grade teacher was convicted of aggravated criminal 
sexual abuse and sentenced to 60 years in prison for sexually abusing 
10 female students in two different school districts, despite 
undergoing a background check, which included a criminal history 
check, reference check, and a review of his teaching experience. At 
the first school district at which he taught, the teacher had been 
disciplined for downloading pornography onto his work computer. He was 
also disciplined at the same school and not rehired after a complaint 
from a parent was filed alleging that the teacher told a student that 
she reminded him of a female movie star, gave the student pictures of 
that star, repeatedly stared at the student and touched her 
unnecessarily on several occasions, though not in any inappropriate 
areas. When he left the school, he received a positive recommendation, 
and neither of the alleged incidents was relayed to his new employer. 
The teacher’s suspicious behavior was brought to the attention of 
officials when a mother at the second school learned from her daughter 
about activities occurring during the after-school program the 
daughter attended that suggested the possibility of sexual abuse. The 
teacher was later convicted of aggravated criminal sexual abuse of 8 
girls at the second school and 2 girls at the first school. As a 
result of this incident, according to school district officials, the 
second school district that hired him has implemented additional steps 
to help protect student safety, such as additional reference checks, 
including sources independently identified. 

[End of text box] 

In addition to concerns over completeness of the data, officials 
representing state education and employee groups have questioned the 
accuracy of data available for background checks. For example, 
officials from one state educational agency told us that because their 
state's public sex offender registry is searchable by name and not 
Social Security number, confusion can arise when searching for common 
names. In addition, representatives of a teacher's union expressed 
concern over possible mistaken identities or other errors associated 
with background checks.[Footnote 38] 

A Majority of States Have Established Professional Codes of Conduct 
for Licensed School Personnel as a Tool to Hold Them Accountable for 
their Behavior: 

Professional standards or codes of conduct serve as another tool that 
42 states reported using as part of their efforts to try to prevent 
sexual abuse and misconduct by school personnel. According to experts, 
policies that identify acceptable and unacceptable behavior for school 
personnel--such as being behind closed doors with a student--can help 
staff, students, and parents determine when violations of the rules 
have occurred. Such policies can help to identify questionable 
behavior that should be reported and communicate to school personnel 
the potential consequences of violating the rules, such as termination 
of employment, which may also deter potential abuse, according to 
experts. Thirty-four of the 42 states with professional standards or 
codes of conduct reported that they apply only to licensed 
professionals, such as teachers and school principals, rather than to 
all school personnel.[Footnote 39] Twenty-two states reported that 
their standards or codes of conduct help define boundaries between 
school personnel and students through examples of appropriate and 
inappropriate behavior, including the use of technology such as cell 
phones and social media such as Facebook. During our site visits, we 
identified some states that developed educator codes of conduct, or 
similar policies, that identify examples of unethical or 
unprofessional conduct with students and that, if violated, are 
grounds for disciplinary action. For example, one state's policy 
guidance requires contact between school personnel and students to 
always be nonsexual, appropriate to the circumstances, and unambiguous 
in meaning. According to this policy guidance, acts such as 
unnecessarily invading a student's personal privacy and singling out a 
particular student or group of students for personal attention and 
friendship beyond the bounds of an appropriate educator/mentor-student 
relationship constitute violations of these boundaries and may result 
in formal disciplinary action. 

According to our survey, 15 states address behavior commonly referred 
to as grooming--behavior intended to establish trust with a student to 
facilitate future sexual activity--in their standards or codes of 
conduct. According to experts we spoke with, some perpetrators of 
child sexual abuse groom potential victims by devoting a significant 
amount of time and attention interacting with them one-on-one. 
Although such interactions taken individually may not be problematic, 
a pattern of such behavior--such as a teacher repeatedly driving a 
student home alone--could indicate a possible problem. Officials in 
one school district we visited explained that perpetrators of child 
sexual abuse sometimes also groom other individuals--such as members 
of the child's family--to gain their trust, in the hope that these 
individuals will not view certain behavior as inappropriate. For 
example, school district officials told us of a case where an alleged 
perpetrator bought a house for a family as a means to maintain contact 
with young children and foster a sense of dependency. While experts 
suggest that grooming behavior can be difficult to identify, 
identifying and addressing violations of boundaries or rules by school 
personnel as they occur may help prevent future abuse. 

Text box: 

Case Study: "Grooming" the Victims: 
A male middle school teacher was arrested, charged with, and pled 
guilty to seven counts of indecent liberties with a child and indecent 
liberties with a student, and sentenced to 18-22 months in prison for 
each count, consecutively, for inappropriate acts with multiple female 
students. The school principal reported to law enforcement that the 
teacher was acting inappropriately with female students. A law 
enforcement investigation found that the male teacher had engaged in 
"grooming" behavior with multiple students, including taking them out 
to dinner in groups as well as in one-on-one situations and buying 
them gifts, such as a necklace, computer, cell phone, and camera. In 
addition, through the course of the investigation, instances of 
touching and kissing between the teacher and some of the students were 
revealed. A forensic examination of his computer also revealed 
pornographic images that appeared to be edited to depict the faces of 
some of his students on someone else's body. 

[End of text box] 

Officials in some school districts we visited spoke to us of 
challenges arising from applying seemingly black-and-white sexual 
abuse prevention policies to the real-life school environment. For 
example, while employees at one school district are generally 
prohibited from transporting students in their personal vehicles, 
[Footnote 40] school district officials expressed concern that a 
teacher may feel obliged to do so upon learning that a student does 
not have a ride home after a tutoring session. In an example from 
another school district, officials said that rules about social media--
such as prohibiting teachers and students from being Facebook friends--
are not feasible; some teachers use this forum as a way to share 
educational interests or to quickly share messages about school event 
cancellations. What is important, instead, is transparency in 
communication, according to officials. Similarly, officials in another 
district explained that it is the conduct and behavior of school 
personnel that should be closely evaluated, not the means of 
communication. In developing local policies, school district officials 
suggested that it is important for districts to be able to tailor 
policies to meet their individual needs. For example, officials from 
one school district we visited said that state guidance with overly 
prescriptive rules on the behavior of school personnel is impractical, 
and that certain factors, such as the age levels of the students and 
student demographics, among other things, should be considered. 

While Most States Do Not Require It, Some School Districts We Visited 
Provide Sexual Abuse Prevention Training to School Personnel, 
Volunteers, and Students: 

We found that most states do not require awareness and prevention 
training, although according to experts, high quality training on the 
prevention of child sexual abuse by school personnel is critical to 
help school officials identify early warning signs of abuse and know 
how to respond when questionable behavior is suspected. Ideally, 
experts recommend that school personnel, parents, and students receive 
some type of training as part of school's efforts to prevent child 
sexual abuse. According to our survey, 18 states required school 
districts to provide awareness and prevention training on sexual abuse 
or misconduct by school personnel against students. At least 15 of the 
18 states required school district superintendents, school 
administrators, counselors, psychologists, and teachers to attend this 
training; however, fewer than half of the 18 states required Title IX 
coordinators, cafeteria and janitorial personnel, and bus drivers to 
take the training. Ten states required coaches to attend sexual abuse 
training while eleven states require training for sexual misconduct. 
Aside from school staff, three states required students to attend 
awareness and prevention training and one state required it for school 
volunteers, such as tutors. No states reported requiring districts to 
offer training for parents. 

Regarding training content, states most frequently required school 
district awareness and prevention training on sexual abuse to cover 
topics related to mandatory reporting requirements (see figure 4). 
[Footnote 41] An expert from a risk management firm we spoke with told 
us that training on mandatory reporting requirements, such as who is 
considered a mandatory reporter and to whom reports should be made, 
generally does not adequately focus on preventing child sexual abuse 
in the first place. 

Figure 4: Number of States Requiring Awareness and Prevention Training 
on Sexual Abuse of Students by School Personnel, by Topic: 

[Refer to PDF for image: horizontal bar graph] 

Topic: Definition of mandatory reporter: 
Number of states: 15. 

Topic: Mandatory reporting requirements: 
Number of states: 15. 

Topic: Penalties for failure to report suspected sexual abuse against 
students: 
Number of states: 14. 

Topic: Rights and protections of mandatory reporters: 
Number of states: 12. 

Topic: Appropriate and inappropriate behavior by school personnel: 
Number of states: 11. 

Topic: Rights and protections of alleged victims: 
Number of states: 9. 

Topic: Rights and protections of alleged perpetrators: 
Number of states: 6. 

Topic: Applicability of Title IX to sexual abuse against students: 
Number of states: 5. 

Source: GAO analysis of state survey data. 

[End of figure] 

Experts told us that prevention training should include information on 
appropriate and inappropriate behavior by school personnel and on the 
grooming process, so that patterns of behavior may be more closely 
monitored and evaluated. Because of this, a number of experts also 
recommend training that is scenario-based, to give participants the 
opportunity to practice responses. In addition, some experts suggest 
that training be provided to all staff--such as bus drivers and 
cafeteria personnel--in addition to teachers and school 
administrators. According to one expert, for training to be effective, 
it should also be given to parents--who may be among the first to 
notice warning signs--as well as students, in an age-appropriate 
manner. For example, age-appropriate training for young students may 
include information on expectations of privacy, whereas older students 
may learn about unhealthy relationships and setting appropriate 
boundaries. Some experts suggest that combining prevention training 
with other safety measures, such as background checks and code of 
conduct policies, helps school districts reduce their vulnerability to 
potential perpetrators of child sexual abuse. Additionally, according 
to a risk management expert, the offer of lower insurance rates by 
insurance companies may provide an additional incentive for school 
districts to implement multiple risk management strategies to protect 
against sexual abuse by school personnel. 

Some school districts we visited developed training aimed at 
preventing child sexual abuse by school personnel for a range of 
personnel, volunteers, and students, as recommended by experts, and 
delivered the training in-person and online. For example, in response 
to prior allegations of child sexual abuse by a teacher, according to 
officials, one district developed in-person training modules designed 
for executive-level managers such as school superintendents, staff, 
volunteers, and students.[Footnote 42] Officials in another district 
said the district recently developed an online, interactive training 
course on preventing adult sexual misconduct with students that will 
be required for all staff, including bus drivers and cafeteria 
workers, volunteers and student mentors.[Footnote 43] In addition to 
including examples of appropriate and inappropriate behavior in their 
training, these school districts also include scenarios depicting 
questionable interactions between school personnel and students. For 
example, officials said their district's online training course 
includes scenarios of 'gray area' behaviors--such as a teacher being 
alone in a room with a student--where the level of appropriateness 
depends on the context of the situation and the age of the student. A 
few school districts also assessed training participants on their 
understanding of the material presented. For example, one district 
requires all employees to demonstrate a minimum competence of at least 
80 percent on an assessment of a sexual harassment compliance video, 
which, according to officials, includes information on employee-
student relationships. 

Officials in several school districts cited time and cost constraints 
to providing training on the prevention of child sexual abuse by 
school personnel. Officials said it can be difficult for teachers to 
attend this training, as well as other required training, in the 
limited time allotted for their professional development. In addition, 
some officials said the cost of hiring substitute teachers to take the 
place of teachers in training, and training materials, if developed by 
another organization, can be cost prohibitive. To help increase the 
accessibility of training to wider audiences and lower costs, experts 
we spoke with have suggested online training and train-the-trainer 
approaches--in which school district administrators or other 
representatives receive the training and then pass the information on 
to school personnel in their local districts. 

Text box: 

Case Study: Training is Not Always Enough: 
Behavior by school personnel that is not criminal may nevertheless be 
inappropriate. A female high school teacher and coach was found to 
have engaged in an ongoing sexual relationship with a female 16-year 
old student. The teacher's conviction of sexual assault was later 
overturned because the student had reached the age of consent at the 
time of the sexual relationship. According to district officials, the 
teacher would have received annual training that identified standards 
of conduct for educators, including what constitutes inappropriate 
behavior between school personnel and students. Since this case, the 
state has changed its law to provide that consensual sex between a 
student and teacher with supervisory or disciplinary authority over 
the student constitutes sexual assault, even if the student is at or 
past the age of consent. 

[End of text box] 

Reporting and Investigating Often Involves Multiple Agencies As Well 
As School Districts, Which Sometimes Presents Challenges: 

Most States Have Minimum Child Abuse Reporting Requirements and Some 
School Districts We Visited Have Additional Reporting Policies: 

State laws in almost all of the states we surveyed identified school 
personnel--who are often in a position to look for, identify and 
report suspicions of abuse--as mandatory reporters.[Footnote 44] Such 
positions typically included school administrators, teachers, school 
psychologists, and school nurses, among other positions, according to 
our survey. In light of recent cases of sexual abuse by school 
personnel involving multiple children and occurring over a number of 
years, some states have also expanded their definition of mandatory 
reporter, according to some experts we interviewed. For example, one 
state recently expanded its mandatory reporting law to include all 
public and private K-12 employees as mandatory reporters, whereas 
previously it had included only school teachers and officials. 
[Footnote 45] According to our survey, mandatory reporters were most 
often required by state law to report to the state or local child 
protective service agency (41 states for sexual abuse and 36 states 
for sexual misconduct) and local law enforcement (35 states for sexual 
abuse and 31 states for sexual misconduct). In addition, some states' 
laws also required reports to a school employee designee (18 states 
for both sexual abuse and misconduct) or a state educational agency 
(17 states for both sexual abuse and misconduct). 

Beyond the minimum reporting requirements outlined under state 
mandatory reporting laws, three state educational agencies and five of 
the school districts we visited have made additional efforts to ensure 
that mandatory reporters in K-12 education understand their 
responsibility to report. For example, officials with one state 
educational agency we visited said the state provided training to 
school districts on developing policies and communicating with school 
personnel about their role in reporting suspected abuse, including 
who, what, when, and how to report such suspicions. At the local 
level, officials at one school district we met with said they included 
reporting requirements in school personnel handbooks and/or in staff 
meeting discussions. Other school districts we visited had developed 
additional means to ensure that personnel knew when to report 
suspected abuse. For example, one school district created ID sized 
"cheat sheets" for school personnel to carry or use as a reminder of 
the district's policies on reporting suspected abuse by school 
personnel. While experts we spoke with noted that it is important for 
school districts to be able to establish their own policies with 
additional requirements or information appropriate for their school, 
we found that states do not always monitor such policies for 
compliance with state laws and state educational agency policies. For 
example, according to our survey, 32 states reported that they did not 
monitor school districts to ensure that any relevant policies and 
procedures at the district level adhered to state requirements 
regarding sexual abuse and 10 reported not monitoring for adherence to 
policies and procedures regarding misconduct by school personnel. 

Challenges Arise with Ensuring Reports of Such Abuse and Misconduct 
are Made: 

Experts and officials in three of the four state educational agencies 
and three of the six school districts we visited reported challenges 
with ensuring that school personnel comply with the policies on 
reporting suspected sexual abuse by school personnel. In response to 
these challenges, these state and local level agencies told us they 
have taken certain steps to build awareness about such 
responsibilities. Challenges included: 

Uncertainty about whether to report. Experts explained that mandatory 
reporters may have difficulty deciding whether to report those 
behaviors that are not criminal in nature, but otherwise may be 
questionable--the gray area. Officials in four of the school districts 
we visited noted that school personnel have asked if such gray area 
behaviors warrant reporting to CPS or law enforcement. To ensure that 
reports are made, three school districts we visited specified in 
policy the types of behaviors that warrant reporting. As one school 
official explained, after having a past incident of suspected sexual 
misconduct in one of its schools, the school district expanded its 
code of conduct to further outline boundaries between school personnel 
and students in an effort to not only prevent its occurrence, but also 
to help mandatory reporters understand when such reports should be 
made. 

Delayed and incomplete reports. During our site visits, CPS and local 
law enforcement officials told us that reports of suspected child 
sexual abuse or misconduct made only to school administrators have 
resulted in delayed reports to CPS and/or law enforcement. Some state 
mandatory reporting laws, including the law in at least two states we 
visited, permit school staff to report to the person in charge of the 
facility in which they work, who is then required to report to CPS or 
law enforcement. For example, in one state we visited, consistent with 
that state's mandatory reporting law, one school district's policy 
only requires school staff to report to designated school officials 
rather than directly to CPS or law enforcement. Further, one state CPS 
agency noted that when reports are filed second-hand by school 
district officials rather than the actual witness, critical details 
and context may be missing from the report. Some states recently 
amended their laws to prevent such second-hand reporting. One state, 
for example, amended its laws to specifically require mandatory 
reporters to report known or suspected child abuse or neglect directly 
to CPS, law enforcement, or another designated authority, instead of 
just reporting to a supervisor, as was permitted prior to the 
amendment. 

Failure to report. CAPTA requires states' laws to include provisions 
that grant individuals immunity from prosecution for reports of known 
or suspected child abuse or neglect made in good faith, which may 
encourage reporting. States have established procedures for mandatory 
reporters to report alleged abuse, and state law generally protects 
them from prosecution for reports made in good faith even if their 
suspicions turn out to be unfounded. However, experts we spoke with 
noted that failure to report--when school personnel witness or 
suspect, but do not report, sexual abuse--may occur. Experts told us 
that cognitive dissonance--the inability for someone to believe that 
something outside of their current view could be happening--often 
occurs when school personnel witness colleagues perpetrate sexual 
abuse or misconduct. For example, a mandatory reporter may dismiss 
suspicions about a colleague because such suspicions go against their 
pre-existing views. As a result of these uncertainties or disbeliefs, 
experts also told us that mandatory reporters may choose not to report 
suspicions of such behaviors. As previously discussed, training for 
school administrators, school personnel, students and parents may also 
help people identify behaviors that are questionable. 

Failure to report occurs even though some states have established 
penalties for failure to report within a specified amount of time. 
According to our survey, 43 states have penalties for failure to 
report suspected sexual abuse by school personnel, and 37 have 
penalties for failure to report sexual misconduct by school personnel. 
Such penalties most often included criminal penalties, fines, and 
suspension or revocation of a license. For example, the law of one 
state we visited provides that mandatory reporters who fail to file a 
report within 24 hours after having reason to suspect a reportable 
offense of child abuse and neglect shall be fined no more than $500 
for the first failure, and at least $1,000 for any subsequent 
failures. For some cases, such as those evidencing acts of rape, the 
law provides that a person who knowingly and intentionally fails to 
make the required report shall be found guilty of a misdemeanor. 
[Footnote 46] For half of the state educational agencies we visited, 
failure to report was grounds for license revocation. At the local 
level, half of the school districts we visited reported having a zero-
tolerance policy for failing to report suspected sexual abuse or 
misconduct, in part because districts and school personnel could be 
held liable and face civil suits for not reporting--a lesson one of 
these school districts had learned firsthand. Officials at this school 
district said the district paid $3 million as a result of a lawsuit 
which alleged that a principal in the district had failed to take 
action in response to reports from teachers of inappropriate contact 
between an elementary school teacher and students. 

Text box: 

Case Study: Failure to Report: 
Multiple school administrators, including the school district director 
of human resources and the superintendent, pled guilty to misdemeanor 
charges for failure to report in a case where a male teacher was found 
guilty of aggravated criminal sexual abuse of 8 female second graders. 
A parent reported to the school district superintendent, who reported 
to the school principal, that her child had told her about suspicious 
activities at school. Upon receiving the report, the school principal 
stated that she would investigate. She later reported back to the 
parents that the teacher used "poor judgment." About three months 
later, by word of mouth, the police learned of similar allegations and 
opened an investigation, through which other students were identified 
as possible victims. A search of the teacher's classroom revealed, 
among other things, blindfolds and scarves that tested positive for 
the teacher's semen. Though state law required educators to report 
suspected abuse to law enforcement or CPS, these school administrators 
failed to do so. 

[End of text box] 

Investigations Into Allegations of Sexual Abuse May Be Conducted By 
School Districts and Other State and Local Agencies: 

Responding to reports of sexual abuse of students by public K-12 
school personnel often involves criminal justice, child welfare, and 
educational agencies, and could result in multiple investigations to 
determine the extent of violations of various laws or policies. 
According to our survey, state laws often dictate which agency or 
agencies have authority to investigate cases of alleged sexual abuse 
or misconduct. Each agency, operating under its own authority, may 
investigate a case of suspected child sexual abuse or misconduct by 
school personnel to determine whether certain violations have 
occurred, including violations of criminal laws, civil laws such as 
requirements related to child well-being, or conditions of employment. 
In addition, each agency may have to meet different standards of 
evidence and requirements when conducting its investigation. For 
example, the standard of evidence needed for a school to determine 
whether an employee violated a professional code of conduct may be 
different from the standard of evidence needed to prosecute someone 
for a crime. See figure 5. 

Figure 5: Types, Purpose, and Selected Disciplinary Outcomes of 
Investigations, by Agency Type: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

Key player: Law enforcement; 
Primary concerns: Criminal sanctions; 
Investigation process: 
1) Investigate allegations by interviewing victim, alleged suspect, 
and witnesses; 
2) Determine if there is sufficient evidence to refer case to district 
attorney for prosecution; 
Possible disciplinary outcomes: 
* No charges; 
* Criminal prosecution (resulting in conviction or acquittal); 
* Incarceration, probation, or other sentence; 
* Register as sex offender. 

Key player: Education; 
Primary concerns: Safety of children; Employment; 
Investigation process: 
1) Limit interaction with children during investigation (e.g. 
suspension or administrative reassignment); 
2) Interview victim, alleged suspect, and witnesses; 
3) Consider protections and safeguards afforded to teachers as part of 
union contracts and other due process requirements; 
4) Determine if codes of conduct or conditions of employment have been 
violated; 
Possible disciplinary outcomes: 
* No action; 
* Warning; 
* Reassignment or suspension; 
* Fired; 
* Loss of license. 

Key player: Child Protective Services; 
Primary concerns: Safety of children; Victim services; 
Investigation process: 
1) Perform preliminary screenings and determine if situation is an 
emergency; 
2) Interview victim, alleged suspect, and witnesses; 
3) Determine if child welfare laws have been violated; consider 
actions and necessary services[A]; 
Possible disciplinary outcomes: 
* No action; 
* Refer to law enforcement for possible prosecution. 

Source: GAO analysis of information from experts and site visits. 

Note: This table identifies examples of disciplinary outcomes that may 
result from investigations. It does not include the services or 
support that investigative agencies may also provide, such as 
counseling services. It does not include federal agencies. 

[A] Some child protective service (CPS) agencies we visited noted they 
use a lower standard of evidence than agencies responsible for 
enforcing criminal laws (such as a preponderance of the evidence 
instead of beyond a reasonable doubt) to determine if sexual abuse 
occurred. For example, one CPS agency we spoke with noted that its 
investigators are directed to consider "grooming" behavior to be 
abuse. Further, they can take a wide variety of actions and provide a 
variety of services, such as a transfer of schools or counseling 
services. 

[End of figure] 

Determining which agency takes the lead in an investigation of alleged 
child sexual abuse by school personnel can be difficult. In addition, 
timing when additional investigations by other agencies should occur 
can vary by case and state. While CPS often takes the lead for 
investigations of parental abuse, in cases where school personnel are 
the suspected perpetrators of sexual abuse or misconduct, state laws 
determine whether CPS or law enforcement will take the lead on such 
investigations. As previously noted, our survey indicated that 
mandatory reporters are required by some state laws to notify CPS of 
potential sexual abuse or misconduct, while several states required 
reports to local law enforcement. Some states' laws allowed mandatory 
reporters to notify either of the agencies, as long as at least one is 
notified. According to officials in the states we visited, in those 
instances when a state requires mandatory reporters to notify CPS, CPS 
will receive the notification, but may or may not have authority under 
that state's law to investigate cases involving school personnel and 
may refer the case to law enforcement. In the states we visited, CPS's 
involvement in cases in which the alleged perpetrators were school 
personnel ranged from not participating in the investigation at all to 
leading the interview with the victim or, in some cases, conducting an 
independent review. When allegations of child sexual abuse or sexual 
misconduct by school personnel arise, state educational agencies may 
also have the authority to conduct their own investigations. According 
to our survey, 15 states provided authority to state professional 
practices or licensing boards to investigate reports of child sexual 
abuse by school personnel, while 17 states did so for reports of 
sexual misconduct. State offices that oversee educator licensing may 
be able to suspend or revoke an educator's license for violations of 
state licensing requirements; for instance, in two states we visited, 
these offices were authorized to revoke licenses for reasons such as 
criminal conviction, conduct detrimental to the health or welfare of 
students, or other good cause, including gross misconduct or 
negligence. For example, in one state we visited, officials from the 
state educational agency told us they had revoked the license of a 
guidance counselor who started a relationship with a student after the 
student graduated based on evidence that the counselor had begun 
"grooming" the student while she was still enrolled in school. No 
criminal charges were filed due to the age of the individual, but the 
state educational agency took action based on violations of the 
school's code of conduct for licensed educators. 

Challenges May Arise When Multiple Parties Investigate: 

Because different agencies can be involved with investigating reports 
of alleged child sexual abuse or misconduct by school personnel for 
different reasons, each of the agencies' particular goals may lead to 
potential interference with another agency's investigation, according 
to education, child welfare, and law enforcement officials, and 
experts we interviewed. Specifically, conflicting missions can lead to 
subjecting children to multiple interviews, not sharing reports, and 
prematurely alerting alleged perpetrators of investigations. For 
example: 

* School or school district investigations can interfere with law 
enforcement and CPS investigations. Law enforcement, district 
attorneys, and CPS officials we spoke with said that school and school 
district administrators' initial inquiries into reports of sexual 
abuse or misconduct before a formal report is made to law enforcement 
or CPS can interfere with the criminal and child welfare 
investigations and unintentionally cause additional trauma for the 
victim. We learned from our site visits that school officials may 
initiate their own investigations before reporting the allegation to 
CPS or law enforcement for different reasons, which include gathering 
additional information to determine whether an incident should be 
reported, and typically are structured to serve interests such as 
taking quick action to address any personnel decisions, reducing the 
financial impact on the school of suspending teachers, and protecting 
the school's reputation. One school district we visited organizes a 
team that determines whether to report an incident to CPS; however, 
officials told us that the district makes it clear to staff that they 
may file a report regardless of the team's decision. In one state we 
visited, school district officials told us they prioritize law 
enforcement investigations above their own, but it is not always 
possible to wait to conduct their own investigation because criminal 
cases may take more time--sometimes a year or longer. As they 
explained, this could interfere with their ability to take timely and 
appropriate personnel actions, such as suspension or termination of 
employment, if warranted. 

To help prevent these long waits, one state educational agency 
official told us his agency encouraged school administrators to get as 
much information as possible about a reported case before law 
enforcement eventually stopped the district's investigation. An 
attorney that worked for one district we visited noted the financial 
expense to the school and possible impact on a teacher's reputation of 
keeping teachers on administrative suspension for long periods of 
time. School officials may also conduct investigations to protect 
their own reputation or that of the school district. Because of the 
school's investigation, the alleged victim may be subjected to 
multiple interviews by different parties, which, law enforcement as 
well as CPS and Child Advocacy Center (CAC) officials told us, can 
place an undue burden on the victim and their family. Further, law 
enforcement officials told us of concerns they have with schools 
initiating their own investigation. For example, if school officials 
are not trained in proper interview techniques, they may 
inappropriately dismiss an allegation and fail to report it to those 
who are properly trained to investigate such cases. 

* The goals of assessing child safety and determining criminal 
activity can sometimes conflict with one another. In determining 
potential harm to a child, CPS may be required to notify the alleged 
perpetrator of its investigation. Such requirements and actions can 
sometimes conflict with law enforcement investigations. For example, 
in one state we visited, CPS is authorized to initiate an 
investigation in some circumstances when the alleged perpetrator is a 
teacher. In this state, CPS is required to conduct an initial review 
within 5 days of receipt of a report to determine if the report is 
valid, and if so, it determines whether to initiate an investigation, 
which often involves interviewing the alleged victim and the alleged 
perpetrator. Law enforcement officials we spoke with said that this 
practice can sometimes conflict with their preferred approach of using 
the element of surprise to capture critical information from the 
perpetrator. In one example, law enforcement officials stated that an 
alleged perpetrator who knew of their investigation fled the area, 
further complicating the case and putting others at risk of harm. 

Challenges are Sometimes Addressed through Collaboration between 
Agencies during Investigations: 

While the goals and requirements of each agency investigating reports 
of suspected child sexual abuse by school personnel can potentially 
compromise other investigations, agencies we visited have established 
ways to increase collaboration to address these challenges. All six 
school districts, five CPS agencies, three law enforcement agencies, 
and two district attorneys we spoke with told us they either 
informally collaborate during these investigations or have formal 
agreements in place to collaborate with each other. In some instances, 
collaboration is mandated by state law.[Footnote 47] For example, the 
law in one state we visited required each county to develop and adopt 
a written protocol for handling criminal child sexual abuse 
investigations that addresses coordination between the prosecutor's 
office, law enforcement, CPS, children's advocacy centers, local 
advocacy groups, community sexual assault programs, and other relevant 
agencies. 

Text box: 

Case Study: Communication between Agencies: 
After a parent filed a report with local law enforcement alleging that 
a female school bus driver had engaged in inappropriate relationship 
with a male student, investigators learned from the student that the 
relationship lasted 2 years and began when the student was 15 years 
old. When police interviewed the bus driver the next day, she was 
arrested and confessed to having a sexual encounter with the student 
when he was 15. The police formally notified the school district, per 
an agreement between law enforcement and the school district, and the 
bus driver was placed on suspension. She was later convicted of 
indecent liberties with a child, received a suspended prison sentence, 
and was required to register as a sex offender, among other penalties. 
Upon this conviction, the school district terminated the bus driver's 
employment with the district. Law enforcement officials who 
investigated the case reported that they had a good working 
relationship with the school district. 

[End of text box] 

In three of the four states we visited, we found that law enforcement 
and CPS formed multi-disciplinary task teams and set protocols, 
through memoranda of understanding, for how to respond to allegations 
of child sexual abuse. One protocol specifically included procedures 
for how to settle disagreements between agencies about cases. However, 
these memoranda and/or multidisciplinary networks generally did not 
include school officials. We were told by two district attorneys that 
since the collaboration between law enforcement and CPS included a 
broader focus on child sexual abuse and misconduct by any type of 
perpetrator, the district attorneys would determine on a case-by-case 
basis whether to include school officials. During these interagency 
meetings, the facts of the case are reviewed and plans are made to 
properly interview the child/children. For example, one state we 
visited developed a Sexual Assault Intervention Networks (SAINs) 
program, which is a collaborative effort involving CPS, local law 
enforcement, and the district attorney's office. As soon as CPS 
receives a report of child sexual abuse, these agencies coordinate as 
a multidisciplinary team to reduce the number of times a child is 
interviewed by different professionals and provide needed services for 
the child and family. Many state and local agencies, including the 
four states we visited, also have CACs that serve as safe places for 
victims and provide specialists for investigative interviews. For 
example, in one state we visited, within 48 hours of notification that 
law enforcement is initiating an investigation, the prosecutor 
convenes a multidisciplinary meeting at the CAC that includes CPS, law 
enforcement, advocacy groups, and school districts, when applicable. 
Officials from law enforcement, district attorneys' offices, CPS, and 
educational agencies we spoke with stated that these collaborative 
approaches are critical to helping them understand one another's 
goals, increasing information sharing, and minimizing additional harm 
to the victim in the form of multiple interviews. 

Text box: 

Case Study: Supporting Another Agency's Goals: 
When a male high school coach was charged with, and pled guilty to, 
sexual battery of a minor for sending inappropriate text messages to a 
female student containing pornographic photos, the police, the 
prosecutor, and the school district worked together closely. The 
prosecuting attorney understood the needs of the school district, 
which, in this case, included investigating and prosecuting the case 
before the start of a new school year. The detective reported that he 
was able to investigate the crime and have a guilty plea within 30 
days - crediting the prosecuting attorney and cooperation from family 
and school personnel. The detective reported that the outcome of the 
investigation could not have worked out any better. 

[End of text box] 

Multiple Federal Agencies Provide Resources to Address Abuse by School 
Personnel, but Coordination and Data Are Limited: 

Federal Agencies Provide Limited Training, Guidance, and Funding, and 
Collect Data Related to Child Sexual Abuse, but These Efforts Are Not 
Well Coordinated or Disseminated: 

The issue of sexual abuse by school personnel crosses several federal 
agencies' missions, with no single agency having a clear leading role 
to coordinate with other agencies to oversee the prevention of and 
response to such situations. Education, HHS, and Justice each have 
distinct missions and each can lend unique expertise to help states, 
school districts, and schools prevent and respond to sexual abuse by 
school personnel. The agencies have worked together on the issue of 
child abuse in the past. In response to a requirement in the 1988 
amendments to CAPTA, HHS led 30 federal agencies in a Federal Inter-
Agency Task Force on Child Abuse and Neglect to help coordinate 
federal activities related to the prevention and treatment of child 
abuse and neglect. Education and Justice were members of the task 
force. According to one HHS official, following the 1996 amendments to 
CAPTA, which eliminated the requirement for such a task force, federal 
agency members have continued to voluntarily coordinate as a work 
group to communicate and exchange ideas concerning child maltreatment-
related programs and activities; collect information about federal 
child maltreatment prevention and treatment activities; and provide a 
basis for collective action through which funding and resources can be 
maximized. However, in July 2013, the lead official responsible for 
coordinating these meetings told us that none of the meetings have 
focused on addressing sexual abuse when perpetrated by school 
personnel. 

With respect to their individual agency efforts to support states and 
school districts to address this issue, Education, HHS, and Justice 
have provided limited support in the form of training, guidance and 
resources, federal funding, and data collection. This support either 
addresses school personnel-to-student sexual abuse and misconduct 
directly or through more general ways to prevent violence or child 
sexual abuse. Agency officials provided examples, including: 

Training: 

* In partnership with a school district we visited, Education's Office 
of Safe and Healthy Students (OSHS) conducted training on the 
prevention of and response to educator sexual misconduct, covering 
such topics as establishing proper boundaries between school personnel 
and students, identifying and training staff to recognize the signs of 
adult sexual misconduct, and establishing policies and procedures on 
how to prevent and respond to sexual abuse by school personnel. The 
school district received grant funds through Education's Readiness and 
Emergency Management for Schools program to develop this training 
after several incidents of abuse by school personnel occurred in the 
district, including a high profile case that culminated in the murder 
of a teacher accused of sexual misconduct with students. OSHS has 
provided the training to other school districts throughout the country 
on request. For example, in 2012, OSHS arranged 11 training sessions 
across nine states for a variety of education entities, including 
school districts, which had a combined total of approximately 500 
attendees. According to OSHS officials, the training targeted security 
officers, superintendents, assistant superintendents, and school 
counselors. In addition, one training was conducted at a school 
district in May 2013 and three others are scheduled or planned for 
later in the year. Education also funded a video module geared towards 
students as a training component for 9th grade health courses at one 
school district. The video included vignettes designed to prompt 
student discussion about what to say when confronted by sexual abuse 
or misconduct by school personnel, who to talk to, and who can help, 
according to district officials. 

* OCR officials said they conduct presentations on Title IX issues 
involving both student-to-student and school personnel-to-student 
harassment. OCR officials also told us they use assistance centers to 
respond to requests from schools for information and provide technical 
assistance, such as training and guidance to help communicate a 
school's responsibilities under Title IX, and to help schools 
implement the regulations. The centers have also received requests for 
assistance with sexual harassment training. OCR officials said this 
type of broad training on sexual harassment could also be applicable 
in cases of sexual abuse perpetrated by school personnel. 

* Although not focused specifically on sexual abuse by public K-12 
school personnel, Justice's OJJDP has funded Darkness to Light 
trainings, which focus on the rehabilitation and prevention of child 
sexual abuse in all settings, including public K-12 schools. 

Guidance and resources: 

* OSHS developed and distributed a technical assistance guide on 
educator sexual misconduct explaining what educator sexual misconduct 
is and how to prevent and respond to it. According to OSHS officials, 
this guide was shared with an electronic list of grantees and others 
involved in measuring school climates, primarily school districts and 
some state officials. Because the guidance was well received, OSHS 
officials told us they provided additional training to school 
districts. 

* In 2001, OCR issued Revised Sexual Harassment Guidance: Harassment 
of Students by School Employees, Other Students, or Third Parties. The 
guidance provided information about schools' responsibility to take 
immediate and effective steps to end sexual harassment, including 
sexual abuse of students by school personnel. In 2006, OCR reissued 
the 2001 guidance with a letter reminding schools of their 
obligations. In 2008, OCR issued a pamphlet answering questions on 
sexual harassment and has since issued two dear colleague letters 
about peer harassment and sexual violence, respectively, both of which 
refer to OCR's 2001 guidance on personnel-to-student harassment. 

* In 2007, the CDC developed a resource on practices for preventing 
child sexual abuse in youth-serving organizations.[Footnote 48] 
According to CDC officials we spoke with, this resource was designed 
to include practices that can be applied to many different 
organizations, including schools. For example, the report includes 
information on protocols involving employment screening, interactions 
between individuals, monitoring employee behavior, ensuring a safe 
environment, responding to inappropriate behavior, and training. CDC 
officials also explained that organizations, including schools, need 
to provide continuous training and review so that all employees know 
that the school takes sexual abuse seriously and has a policy about 
appropriate behavior and responding to sexual abuse. Further, CDC 
officials told us that organizations need to review how the policy is 
working over time, and see if there are any lessons learned that could 
be incorporated into the school's policy. In the event that the 
organization has any cases of sexual abuse, the policies also need to 
be applied and tested. CDC officials told us they use the practices 
resource to conduct presentations at conferences to help many 
different kinds of organizations address child sexual abuse. In 
addition, risk management organizations and insurance companies 
recommend the use and application of the information in the CDC 
resource. For example, one insurance company told us that after 
evaluating an organization, such as a school district, including its 
risk, mission, and operations, they have recommended using CDC's 
resource as a guide to developing step-by-step policies and procedures. 

* HHS' Administration for Children and Families has a web/Internet 
portal of information addressing the prevention and treatment of child 
abuse and neglect called the Child Welfare Information Gateway. While 
many of the resources on the portal provide information that addresses 
child abuse and neglect broadly and in the context of the family 
environment, the portal also provides a few resources on identifying 
adults at risk of sexually abusing children and examples of sexual 
abuse by school staff are provided. For example, the portal includes a 
link to CDC's resource and other materials on prevention, though not 
specific to schools. Experts and federal officials we spoke with told 
us that additional information that specifically addresses these types 
of cases could be helpful to include on the portal. 

Other grants: 

* CDC funded cooperative agreements in 2002 with three states that 
provided services related to child sexual abuse.[Footnote 49] All of 
the grantees looked at the prevention of sexual abuse at the societal 
level and two states, Massachusetts and Georgia, specifically included 
schools. For example, Georgia used a CDC grant to conduct train-the-
trainer programs in conjunction with the state's educational agency to 
address child sexual abuse. Officials said CDC's resource was useful 
for developing the training curriculum because it includes all the 
important processes needed for preventing child sexual abuse in 
organizations that serve youth. 

* HHS' Administration for Children and Families and Justice's Office 
for Victims of Crime, through the CJA program, provide grants to 
states to improve administrative and judicial proceedings regarding 
the investigation and prosecution of child abuse cases, particularly 
child sexual abuse cases.[Footnote 50] To be eligible, states are 
required to establish multidisciplinary or CJA task forces. These task 
forces are made up of representatives from local law enforcement 
departments, CPS agencies, and child advocates, among other 
professionals.[Footnote 51] In some of states we visited, multi-
disciplinary task forces have used CJA grant money and other federally-
supported resources to conduct educational awareness and outreach to 
schools, as well as trainings to help improve the skills of those 
conducting forensic interviews of victims when allegations of sexual 
abuse are reported. 

Data collection and analysis: 

Although several federal agencies collect related data, none collect 
comprehensive data that would quantify the prevalence of sexual abuse 
by school personnel. Some examples of the federal efforts to collect 
data include the following: 

* Through its National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), 
Education collects information on school safety and crime. Although 
NCES' school violence data are required by statute to include 
information on the relationship between victims and perpetrators, NCES 
does not capture information about whether the perpetrators of sexual 
abuse against students are school personnel.[Footnote 52] We examined 
the School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS)--one of the primary 
sources of school-level data on crime and safety--and spoke with NCES 
officials who said the survey is not designed to collect information 
on whether school personnel are the perpetrators of child sexual abuse 
in schools. According to an official at NCES, the survey captures 
counts of crime, including "rape or attempted rape" and "sexual 
battery other than rape" that occurred at school from a nationally 
representative cross-section of schools; however, it does not capture 
information about who specifically committed those crimes, and only 
captures crimes committed on school grounds. Furthermore, the official 
explained that, due to uncertainties in future funding for these 
surveys, NCES does not plan to add variables that would capture the 
type of perpetrator. According to one NCES official, NCES does not 
view the SSOCS as the appropriate vehicle for collecting incident-
level data and determined that data on violence against all persons, 
including students, are already collected through the National Crime 
Victimization Survey (NCVS) carried out by Justice. NCES officials 
asked Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) to make some 
changes to the NCVS to account for alleged perpetrators who are school 
personnel, but acknowledged that more could be done to obtain more 
accurate counts and robust analysis. In 2007, BJS added the variable 
"teacher/school staff" to a question in the NCVS that asks about how 
the victim knew the offender; however, from 2007 to 2012, no cases of 
sexual violence against any students ages 12 to 18 by school personnel 
were reported in the NCVS. Further, as the survey is currently 
designed, data collected are limited to capturing information about 
victims age 12 and older. BJS officials offered several reasons why 
the NCVS may not be capturing cases of sexual violence by 
teacher/school staff. For example, the survey draws from a small 
sample of children ages 12 through18; uses broad language in the two 
questions asked; and captures crimes occurring within the last 6 
months, when generally, victims of sexual abuse do not report such 
abuse until they are adults, according to official we spoke with. In 
addition, they explained, sexual violence is difficult to measure and 
children may not fully understand what is happening to them or be 
unwilling to report it. 

* According to an Education official, the agency's Civil Rights Data 
Collection (CRDC) is another data set which captures wide-ranging 
information on education and civil rights issues from public schools 
and is used by OCR for enforcement and monitoring of compliance with 
federal civil rights laws, including Title IX.[Footnote 53] However, 
while these data cover the universe of schools, data specifically on 
reports of school personnel as alleged perpetrators is not collected. 

* Education's OCR also maintains an electronic database of complaints 
regarding Title IX issues; however, the system does not have a 
variable that identifies the alleged perpetrator of sexual violence. 

* HHS captures data in the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data 
System (NCANDS). These data are reported by state child protective 
services agencies; however, NCANDS does not specifically identify 
whether the alleged perpetrators of child sexual abuse are school 
personnel.[Footnote 54] 

While Education, HHS, and Justice all have data systems that capture 
information from state and local entities about child abuse, none 
capture the extent of sexual abuse and misconduct perpetrated by 
public K-12 school personnel. In response to a requirement in the 2002 
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 
(ESEA), Education had taken steps to understand this issue by 
contracting with an expert in the field, who conducted a study on 
educator sexual misconduct to identify the prevalence of sexual abuse 
by school personnel. Because of limited data, instead of original 
research, the 2004 study resulted in a synthesis of existing 
literature on the prevalence of educator sexual misconduct, offender 
characteristics, targets of misconduct, and recommendations for 
prevention, such as written school-and school district-level policies 
prohibiting such behavior, hiring and screening practices to identify 
red flags in applicant backgrounds, and educating employees and 
students about unacceptable behaviors. Even if there were systems 
designed to capture data on school personnel as perpetrators of sexual 
abuse and misconduct, interested stakeholders would still need to 
check multiple systems for information about criminal activity, 
actions taken against licensure, and cases captured in child welfare 
databases. One expert we spoke with suggested that original research 
or a longitudinal study could help stakeholders and the general public 
understand the full scope of the problem. 

State and Local Agencies Have Limited Awareness of Federal Resources 
to Help Prevent and Respond to Sexual Abuse and Misconduct by School 
Personnel: 

According to our survey of state educational agencies, less than half 
of the states said they were aware of resources available to them from 
the federal agencies. See table 1. 

Table 1: Number of State Educational Agencies Aware of Federal 
Resources to Help Prevent and Respond to Sexual Abuse and Sexual 
Misconduct by School Personnel, by Topic: 

Resources from Federal Agencies: Education; 
Number of States Aware of Information/Guidance: 
Sexual abuse: 18; 
Sexual misconduct: 19. 

Resources from Federal Agencies: HHS; 
Number of States Aware of Information/Guidance: 
Sexual abuse: 12; 
Sexual misconduct: 11. 

Resources from Federal Agencies: Justice; 
Number of States Aware of Information/Guidance: 
Sexual abuse: 11; 
Sexual misconduct: 11. 

Source: GAO analysis of survey data from 50 states and the District of 
Columbia. 

[End of table] 

In addition to limited awareness of existing federal resources to 
address this issue, according to our survey, 29 states said additional 
guidance and technical assistance from the federal government could be 
useful to states or school districts to help address sexual abuse or 
misconduct by school personnel. Examples of such assistance included 
guidance on developing professional standards and codes of conduct, 
examples of training models and materials, federal sponsorship or 
provision of training that addresses prevention and response, and 
opportunities for federal grants to states for outreach and prevention 
programs. State officials we spoke with frequently mentioned their 
need for additional guidance and technical assistance to help with 
policies to prevent and respond to sexual abuse by school personnel. 
Furthermore, some school district officials we spoke with at our 
selected site visits were unaware of guidance from the federal 
agencies when developing their own policies to address sexual abuse 
and misconduct. 

The limited coordination among Education, HHS, and Justice to leverage 
combined resources, expertise, and capacities across agencies may 
hinder the agencies' efforts to address this complex issue in a 
crosscutting and multidisciplinary way. The Government Performance and 
Results Act of 1993 (GPRA), as updated by the GPRA Modernization Act 
of 2010,[Footnote 55] establishes a framework for a crosscutting and 
integrated approach to focusing on results and improving government 
performance. This framework includes identifying how an agency is 
working with other agencies to achieve its performance goals. 
Furthermore, according to the Standards for Internal Control in the 
Federal Government, federal agencies should ensure there are adequate 
means of communicating with external stakeholders who have a 
significant impact on agency goals.[Footnote 56] No single federal 
agency is leading the effort, and weaknesses in coordination among 
these agencies to disseminate comprehensive information to state and 
local entities may leave states and local entities without important 
information that could help ensure a comprehensive and integrated 
approach to addressing this issue. 

Education's Regulations and Guidance for Title IX Include Requirements 
to Protect Students, but K-12 Educators Are Unclear On How To Apply 
the Requirements: 

Education plays an important role in addressing the issue of sexual 
abuse by school personnel through its oversight of schools' and 
districts' compliance with Title IX, including requiring schools to 
designate an employee as a Title IX coordinator and adopt grievance 
procedures for the resolution of complaints of Title IX violations. 
However, we found limited awareness and, in some cases, confusion 
about the role of Title IX coordinators when allegations of sexual 
abuse or misconduct by public K-12 school personnel against students 
arise. School officials at four of the six school districts we visited 
told us that Title IX coordinators are not involved when allegations 
of sexual abuse or sexual misconduct are made against school 
personnel. For example, one district official said the Title IX 
coordinator is generally the district athletic director who handles 
discrimination and gender equality issues, and it is human resource 
officers, principals, and superintendents that most often handle 
reports of suspected sexual abuse or misconduct by school personnel. 
Subject matter experts and association officials representing Title IX 
coordinators also said these cases are generally not handled through 
Title IX coordinators. Further, these experts and officials explained 
that K-12 education professionals generally view Title IX requirements 
as more applicable in athletic programs or in cases of employee-to-
employee harassment. Other experts who have worked with school 
administrators or school districts to provide training on preventing 
child sexual abuse told us some school administrators were not aware 
of the requirements of Title IX, who the Title IX coordinator was, or 
the coordinator's responsibilities. 

Title IX prohibits sexual harassment in education programs or 
activities, and compliance with Title IX and Education's regulations 
is required of all schools receiving federal assistance, including 
public K-12 school districts and schools; however, Education's related 
guidance and other outreach to specify how the regulations apply to 
situations where K-12 school personnel perpetrate sexual abuse or 
misconduct against students is limited. As a result, schools may be 
left on their own to determine which cases are subject to Title IX 
compliance requirements. For example, in two school districts we 
visited, school officials said they interpreted Title IX violations to 
include adult-to-adult or student-to-student incidents, not adult-to-
student incidents. In one school district official's view, sexual 
harassment consists of an element of adult behavior toward another 
adult co-worker and is not relevant to cases of sexual abuse of 
students. Education's 2001 guidance specifies that Title IX protects 
students from sexual harassment by a teacher or other school employee, 
among other types of harassment, and includes some examples of 
prohibited conduct. Although some of the examples are in K-12 
settings, the guidance focuses more on a variety of situations in a 
college campus or university setting.[Footnote 57] OCR officials 
explained that, while sexual abuse was covered in its 2001 sexual 
harassment guidance, through compliance investigations and technical 
assistance with schools, officials concluded that schools needed 
additional guidance on Title IX's applicability to sexual abuse 
allegations. OCR developed and issued a pamphlet in 2008 which 
condensed the material covered in the 2001 guidance into a more 
accessible format and included some examples of inappropriate sexual 
conduct between K-12 school personnel and students.[Footnote 58] 
Education's sexual harassment guidance since 2008 has focused on peer-
perpetrated sexual harassment and violence against students and refers 
readers to its prior guidance for information about personnel-to-
student sexual harassment, despite continued reports of cases 
involving sexual abuse and misconduct by public K-12 school personnel 
and the changing nature of interactions between students and school 
personnel through the use of social media, for example. 

An official we spoke with at one association representing Title IX 
coordinators told us that much of Education's guidance never took hold 
at the K-12 education level. OCR officials explained that while they 
receive some complaints against school personnel, they receive many 
more about student-to-student harassment. In addition to OCR's written 
guidance, OCR officials said they conduct presentations on Title IX 
issues involving both student-to-student and school personnel-to-
student harassment and use assistance centers to provide technical 
assistance, as mentioned earlier. Despite these efforts, one 
association representing Title IX coordinators told us they receive 
calls from school superintendents--and to a lesser degree, athletic 
directors--to better understand the requirements under Title IX and 
inquire about available training, because there is limited information 
available about how Title IX applies to the specific types of 
situations that arise in K-12 education. 

Conclusions: 

The sexual abuse of students and sexual misconduct by public K-12 
school personnel is a complex problem, and such behavior is 
particularly egregious because schools are entrusted with educating 
the nation's children. There are no simple solutions to this problem 
and, although states and school districts are taking some positive 
steps, current efforts are clearly not enough. Background checks can 
help identify some previous offenders; however, they have limitations. 
Professional standards and codes of conduct can help clarify what is 
considered inappropriate behavior but often do not apply to all school 
staff, and training on recognizing and preventing child sexual abuse 
by school personnel is not widespread. School administrators can 
respond quickly to limit contact when abuse is suspected, but their 
action can also hinder CPS and law enforcement investigations without 
close collaboration among all parties. Unless these individual 
components are both strengthened and integrated, states and school 
districts will continue to miss opportunities to prevent and respond 
quickly and effectively to child abuse by school personnel. 

The federal government, through its existing resources and expertise, 
is well positioned to assist states and localities and to help 
strengthen their prevention and response efforts. Education, HHS, and 
Justice each bring specific expertise to the table. However, because 
federal efforts and collaboration to date have been limited, states, 
districts, and schools have worked to address this type of sexual 
abuse and misconduct with minimal federal guidance on model policies, 
programs, and practices. Further, most states are not aware of the 
federal resources that are currently available. In addition, some 
states have enacted laws and states and school districts have 
developed policies to prevent and respond to such abuse but have 
limited information on the magnitude of the problem, which the federal 
government is in a position to provide. Finally, limited understanding 
of how Title IX requirements apply to allegations of suspected sexual 
abuse or misconduct by school personnel against K-12 students may 
hinder state and local efforts to properly address such cases, prevent 
such behaviors and actions in the future, and ultimately protect 
children from harm. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

In order to help inform federal, state, and local initiatives to 
prevent and respond to child sexual abuse by school personnel, the 
Secretary of Education should lead an effort, in collaboration with 
the Secretary of HHS and the Attorney General, to leverage resources, 
expertise, and capacities across the departments to: 

* Develop a comprehensive package of materials for states, districts, 
and schools that outlines steps that can be taken to prevent and 
respond to child sexual abuse by school personnel. For example, this 
could include compiling, assessing, and enhancing existing guidance, 
training materials, grant opportunities, and other resources; 

* Determine the most cost-effective way to disseminate federal 
information so that relevant state and local educational agencies, 
child welfare agencies, and criminal justice entities are aware of and 
have access to it; and: 

* Identify mechanisms to better track and analyze the prevalence of 
child sexual abuse by school personnel through existing federal data 
collection systems, such as the School Survey on Crime and Safety, the 
National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System, and the National Crime 
Victimization Survey. 

To help ensure that Title IX requirements to prevent and address 
sexual harassment, including sexual abuse and misconduct by school 
personnel against students, are carried out appropriately at public K-
12 schools, the Secretary of Education should: 

* Clarify and disseminate information on the roles and 
responsibilities of Title IX coordinators and more clearly emphasize 
that Title IX also applies to public K-12 schools and to cases 
involving school personnel-to-student sexual abuse and misconduct. For 
example, Education could update its existing Title IX guidance to 
specifically include information about adult-to-student sexual abuse 
and the applicability of Title IX to K-12 schools, examples of the 
types of behavior that may violate Title IX, and instructions on how 
to ensure school personnel can effectively carry out their 
responsibilities. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We provided a draft of this report to the Departments of Education, 
HHS, and Justice for review and comment. Education provided formal 
comments that are reproduced in appendix III. Education and HHS 
provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. 
Justice did not have any technical or formal comments. 

Education agreed that there is an important federal role in adequately 
informing and equipping state and local entities to address the 
prevention of and response to child sexual abuse by school personnel. 
Education also noted that while the federal government is well 
positioned to help states and localities, it is vital that all states 
also have a policy that requires background checks of all adults 
working with students. 

Education concurred with our recommendation that the department, in 
collaboration with HHS and Justice, leverage resources, expertise, and 
capacities to compile and disseminate information to states and 
identify a way to track the prevalence of sexual abuse by school 
personnel. In response, Education said that it is taking action to 
revise its Adult Sexual Misconduct training module offered through the 
Office of Safe and Healthy Students to target a wider audience, 
including school volunteers. We believe this is an important step and 
suggest Education widely disseminate its revised training module and 
encourage state and local educational agencies to adopt the training 
for all who come into contact with students. Education said it will 
explore ways to collaborate with HHS and Justice to develop resources 
and provide more comprehensive technical assistance in a cost-
effective way. Further, Education said it will explore methods to 
better track and analyze the prevalence of child sexual abuse by 
school personnel. Without these data, the federal government will 
continue to lack key information to help target technical assistance 
and other resources and equip state and local entities with the 
information to better address this issue. 

In response to our recommendation to clarify and disseminate 
information about the applicability of Title IX in cases of adult-to-
student sexual abuse and misconduct, Education said its Office for 
Civil Rights is currently developing guidance on peer sexual violence. 
This guidance will again mention that Title IX applies to sexual 
harassment at the K-12 and postsecondary levels and remind schools 
that Title IX also prohibits sexual harassment of students by 
employees. It will also provide information on the roles and 
responsibilities of the Title IX coordinators. In addition, Education 
said this office plans to develop policy guidance focusing on schools' 
requirements to designate a Title IX coordinator and explaining the 
coordinators' roles and responsibilities in the K-12 and postsecondary 
settings. We continue to encourage Education to consider ways to make 
all guidance on this issue as clear as possible, which may require 
issuing a set of guidance separate from the one focusing on peers that 
highlights the importance of this issue and the applicability of Title 
IX in situations of abuse by school personnel. 

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of
this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 4 days from the
report date. At that time, we will send copies to the Secretary of
Education, HHS, and the Attorney General and interested congressional
committees. The report will also be available at no charge on the GAO
Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, 
please contact me at (202) 512-7215 or Brownke@gao.gov. Contact points 
for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be 
found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key 
contributions to this report are listed in appendix IV. 

Sincerely yours, 

Signed by: 

Kay Brown, Director: 
Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope and Methodology: 

This appendix discusses in detail our methodology for addressing three 
research questions: 

(1) What steps have states and school districts taken to help prevent 
child sexual abuse by school personnel? (2) What are states and school 
districts' reporting requirements and approaches to investigating 
allegations of child sexual abuse by school personnel? and (3) To what 
extent have federal agencies made efforts to prevent and respond to 
child sexual abuse by school personnel? To address these questions, we 
reviewed relevant federal laws, regulations, and guidance; conducted 
interviews with Education, HHS, and Justice officials and with other 
representatives of the K-12 education, child welfare, and criminal 
justice communities; surveyed state educational agencies in 50 states 
and the District of Columbia; and conducted site visits to four states 
and six of their school districts, where we interviewed state 
agencies, school districts, local law enforcement and child protective 
service agencies and reviewed relevant information. We conducted this 
performance audit from October 2012 to January 2014 in accordance with 
generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards 
require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, 
appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings 
and conclusions based on the audit objectives. We believe that the 
evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 
conclusions based on our audit objectives. Our investigative 
activities were conducted in accordance with standards prescribed by 
the Council of the Inspectors General for Integrity and Efficiency. 

Review of Federal Laws, Regulations, Guidance and Data: 

To identify federal efforts to prevent and respond to child sexual 
abuse by school personnel, we reviewed relevant federal laws as well 
as Education's regulations and guidance on Title IX requirements for 
schools. We also reviewed Education's School Survey on Crime and 
Safety, HHS' National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System, and 
Justice's National Crime Victimization Survey to identify information 
federal agencies collect on child sexual abuse and misconduct 
perpetrated by school personnel. 

Interviews with Federal Officials and Other Experts: 

To examine the federal role in addressing child sexual abuse by K-12 
public school personnel, we interviewed officials from Education, HHS, 
and Justice, relevant education and child welfare groups, and risk 
management organizations. At Education, we spoke with officials in the 
Office for Civil Rights, Office of Safe and Healthy Students, and the 
National Center for Education Statistics. At HHS, we spoke with 
officials at the Administration for Children and Families' Children's 
Bureau. At Justice, we interviewed officials from the Office for 
Victims of Crime, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
Prevention, and the Bureau of Justice Statistics. We interviewed 
experts from a broad range of education and child welfare groups 
including the American Association of School Administrators, the 
Association of Title IX Administrators, Committee for Children, the 
National Association of State Directors of Teacher Education and 
Certification, the National School Board Association, the Crimes 
Against Children Research Center, Darkness to Light, Stop it Now, and 
Stop Educator Sexual Abuse, Misconduct and Exploitation. We also 
interviewed officials at risk management organizations such as First 
Nonprofit Insurance Company and Praesidium, Inc. 

Case Studies: 

To obtain national-level information on states' requirements and 
practices for preventing and addressing sexual abuse and sexual 
misconduct by school personnel in public K-12 schools, we designed and 
administered a Web-based survey to state commissioners and 
superintendents of education in the 50 states and the District of 
Columbia. The survey was conducted between May and July 2013, with 100 
percent of states responding to the survey. The survey included 
questions about state laws and regulations regarding employment 
practices, training, mandatory reporting, and investigations of 
allegations of sexual abuse and sexual misconduct by school personnel; 
state codes of conduct, and monitoring and guidance provided to school 
districts; and assistance from the federal government. In July 2013, 
we sent a follow-up question by e-mail to all survey respondents about 
requirements for background checks for contract employees working in 
public K-12 schools. We received responses to the additional question 
from 48 states through August 2013.[Footnote 59] 

Because this was not a sample survey, there are no sampling errors. 
However, the practical difficulties of conducting any survey may 
introduce nonsampling errors, such as variations in how respondents 
interpret questions and their willingness to offer accurate responses. 
We took steps to minimize nonsampling errors, including pretesting 
draft survey instruments and using a Web-based administration system. 
Specifically, during survey development, we pretested draft 
instruments with officials in Alabama, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and 
Washington state. We also received comments on our draft survey from 
Education's Office for Civil Rights, Office of Elementary and 
Secondary Education, and Office of the General Counsel; and HHS' 
Administration for Children and Families. In the pretests and expert 
reviews, we were generally interested in the clarity of the questions 
and the flow and layout of the survey. For example, we wanted to 
ensure that terms used in the survey were clear and known to the 
respondents, categories provided in closed-ended questions were 
complete and exclusive, and the ordering of survey sections and the 
questions within each section were appropriate. On the basis of the 
pretests and expert reviews, the Web instrument underwent some 
revisions. A second step we took to minimize nonsampling errors was 
using a web-based survey. By allowing respondents to enter their 
responses directly into an electronic instrument, this method 
automatically created a record for each respondent in a data file and 
eliminated the need for and the errors associated with a manual data 
entry process. When the survey data were analyzed, a second, 
independent analyst checked all computer programs to further minimize 
error. Responses to the additional question received by email were 
analyzed and the results were corroborated by additional team members. 

While we did not independently validate all of the information that 
state officials reported through our survey, we reviewed the survey 
responses overall to determine that they were complete and did not 
contradict one another. Also, where necessary, we requested further 
clarification from states to their responses on the additional survey 
question. On the basis of our steps, we believe our survey data from 
both sources are sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our work. 

Site Visits: 

To gather more in-depth information about state and local requirements 
and practices to prevent and respond to child sexual abuse and 
misconduct by school personnel, we conducted site visits to four 
states: Georgia, Massachusetts, Virginia, and Washington. We selected 
states that were identified during our initial expert interviews as 
having developed laws or regulations to address prevention, detection, 
reporting, and/or investigation of child sexual abuse specifically by 
school personnel. We selected a total of six public school districts 
based on information about their policies and training to address such 
issues, expert recommendations, and the geographic location of the 
school district within each state we visited. We also based selections 
on states or local districts that had previously dealt with a case of 
reported child sexual abuse or misconduct by public K-12 school 
personnel. In addition to public school districts, we visited and 
gathered information from others who are involved in responding to 
cases of sexual abuse and misconduct by school personnel, such as 
officials from state educational and child welfare agencies, local 
police departments and prosecutors' offices, and relevant child 
advocacy organizations. 

Across the states we visited, we interviewed officials at four state 
educational agencies, which supervise elementary and secondary 
education, four state child protective service agencies, six public 
school districts, four school boards or teachers' associations, two 
local departments of child protection, five police departments, five 
district attorney's offices, two Children's Advocacy Centers (CAC), 
one service organization for victims (non-CAC), and three child 
advocacy groups. At the school districts we visited, we spoke with 
school superintendents, attorneys, human resources personnel, school 
counselors, and school safety officials, when available. During each 
of these interviews, we collected information on state and local 
policies and procedures for responding to and investigating reports of 
child sexual abuse or misconduct and challenges and strategies in 
addressing reports of child sexual abuse and misconduct by public K-12 
school personnel. We also gathered and reviewed general information 
about how cases were managed and any lessons learned. For the CAC and 
service organizations, we learned about procedures for handling 
reports, how interviews are conducted, the roles of the different 
agencies working with these organizations, and toured two CAC 
facilities, including the rooms where interviews with children take 
place. We also observed one school district's training session for 
school personnel on the subject. We reviewed policies, training 
materials, and other relevant documentation. 

Information we gathered on our site visits represents the conditions 
present at the time of our visit. We cannot comment on any changes 
that may have occurred after our fieldwork was completed. Our site 
visit findings cannot be generalized to the larger state or local 
education, child welfare, or law enforcement population. 

Closed Case Reviews: 

To illustrate the complexities of cases of sexual abuse and misconduct 
by K-12 school personnel and how incidents are identified, reported, 
and investigated, investigators from GAO's Forensic Audits and 
Investigative Service team reviewed closed criminal cases identified 
through media and legal database searches. We selected cases for 
further review to achieve variation among these criteria: gender of 
perpetrator, age of child/children, if there were multiple victims of 
the same perpetrator, and perpetrators who held different positions in 
the school (teacher, school official, bus driver, janitor, etc.). The 
investigators reviewed five cases that were determined to be closed, 
with no pending litigation. The case study reviews included travel to 
several states and interviews with agencies and individuals involved 
in each case (including, but not limited to, law enforcement 
personnel, school administrators, prosecutors, and child welfare 
agencies). In addition, we reviewed case files and other relevant 
documents. Case study reviews were conducted from May 2013 through 
July 2013. Our investigative activities were conducted in accordance 
with standards prescribed by the Council of the Inspectors General for 
Integrity and Efficiency. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Case Studies: 

The facts described in the following five cases come from our 
investigators' interviews with agencies and individuals involved in 
each case and a review of case files and other relevant documents. 
These cases are meant to illustrate concepts and issues discussed in 
the report; we made no independent evaluations of the merits of the 
underlying cases. (See Appendix I for information on the case study 
methodology.) 

Case A: 

As discussed in the report, one of the challenges with preventing and 
addressing child abuse by school personnel is the failure to report 
allegations to law enforcement or child protective services. According 
to investigators interviewed and documents we reviewed, in November 
2006, a mother learned from her second-grade daughter about activities 
occurring during the after-school program the daughter attended that 
suggested the possibility of sexual abuse by a second-grade teacher. 
On the day she learned of these activities, the child's mother 
reported the alleged suspicious activities to the district 
superintendent, who informed the school principal. The next day the 
child's parents met with the principal, who agreed to conduct an 
investigation. The principal's investigation concluded with a phone 
call to the child's parents in which the school principal stated the 
incident was a matter of "poor judgment" by the teacher. Unsatisfied, 
the child's parents again contacted the district superintendent who 
ordered an investigation at the district level. About a month later, 
the parents received a letter stating that the district's 
investigation was complete, and the incident was referred to as a 
personnel matter. The letter also said the school district could not 
discuss the issue with the parents. The parents reported that they 
moved their daughter to another school because they felt that the 
school district failed to handle the matter appropriately. 

In January 2007, a report was made to the police department by a 
police officer, who had heard from his wife, a teacher in the same 
school district, an allegation that the male second-grade teacher may 
have sexually molested a female student. The police department 
initiated an investigation. Also in January 2007, following the filing 
of the police report by the officer, the parents allowed their child 
to be interviewed by a trained child welfare investigator. The 
investigator's interview identified a likelihood of abuse, and two 
additional potential victims were named by the child. Those potential 
victims were also interviewed by child welfare investigators and 
provided the investigators with detailed allegations of abuse similar 
to those found in the interview of the first child. Police 
investigators also interviewed the district superintendent, who shared 
the results of the district's investigation and expressed his 
satisfaction with the results of the inquiry. Police investigators 
obtained and executed search warrants, which resulted in the seizure 
of toys, food items, scarves, a blindfold and a notebook from the 
teacher's classroom. A semen stain was identified on the scarves and a 
blindfold that the police later matched through DNA analysis to the 
teacher. Two days after the police report was filed, the teacher was 
arrested, and he was eventually convicted of aggravated criminal 
sexual abuse against eight victims in this case and sentenced to 48 
years in prison. 

No report of alleged sexual molestation had been made by school or 
district officials to police or the child welfare agency. According to 
the prosecutor, state law requires that educators report potential 
abuse to law enforcement or the child welfare agency; he further said 
that notifying district officials does not satisfy this requirement. 
Their failure to report potential child sex abuse resulted in 
misdemeanor pleas by the school principal, the school district's 
director of human resources, and the district superintendent. 

During the course of their investigation, police investigators also 
learned that the teacher had previously been a second grade teacher in 
a neighboring school district for 2 years and had been allegedly 
involved in two incidents that were not brought to the attention of 
his subsequent employer. In the first incident, the school found that 
the teacher had been subscribing to inappropriate Internet web sites 
in violation of Board of Education policy and the school district's 
code of conduct by downloading pornography to a school computer and 
sending that material from the school computer to his home computer. 
For that incident, he received a letter of reprimand in his personnel 
file from the school district's Office of the Superintendent, telling 
him to desist and obtain counseling. Additionally, he was suspended 
with pay for 5 days and advised that any further incident of this 
nature would lead to termination. The second incident involved a 
female student, whose parents filed a complaint with the school about 
7 months after the first incident involving pornography, alleging that 
the teacher told the student that she reminded him of a female movie 
star, gave the student pictures of that star, repeatedly stared at the 
student and touched the student unnecessarily on several occasions, 
though not in any inappropriate areas. The school district placed the 
teacher on paid administrative leave for the remainder of the school 
year and did not rehire him. When he left the school, he received a 
positive recommendation, and neither of the alleged incidents was 
relayed to his new employer. 

In addition, during the investigation, the police investigators also 
learned about similar allegations involving two female students and 
the teacher while he was employed previously at the other school. The 
teacher was convicted of aggravated criminal sexual abuse of two 
children in this school district, for which he received an additional 
sentence of 12 years, to be served consecutively with the 48-year 
sentence. 

Another challenge discussed in the report is the limitations of 
background checks. At the time of the incident, the second school 
district that hired the teacher would have conducted a background 
check on the teacher as part of the hiring process that consisted of a 
criminal history check, reference check, and a review of his teaching 
experience. Today, according to district officials, the school 
district also checks sex offender registries and related websites, 
performs additional reference checks including sources independently 
identified, takes fingerprints and checks the fingerprints for 
criminal history and identity, and, since 2008, does a check with the 
child welfare agency to see whether there are reports of pending child 
abuse investigations or findings of child abuse. Since this incident, 
the school district has also implemented periodic mandatory training 
using the child welfare agency's staff to teach classes on mandatory 
reporting requirements and recognizing signs of potential abuse. 

Case B: 

As described in the report, school personnel who commit sexual abuse 
of students may engage in "grooming" behavior with potential victims: 
behavior carried out with the intent of establishing trust with a 
student to facilitate future sexual activity. In October 2009, a 
middle school principal reported an allegation that a teacher at the 
school had engaged in inappropriate touching of students to an 
attorney for the school district, who then reported it to police. A 
subsequent investigation by the police department, which included 
interviews with parents and students, identified behavior between the 
teacher and multiple students that included taking female students out 
to dinner in groups as well as in one-on-one situations. It also 
identified instances of the teacher buying gifts such as a necklace, 
computer, cell phone, and camera for students. Additionally, instances 
of touching and kissing were identified between the teacher and some 
of the students. A forensic examination of the teacher's computer 
revealed child pornography. The examination also revealed several 
pornographic pictures depicting sexual acts which appeared to be 
edited to depict the faces of his students on someone else's body. The 
teacher was arrested in October 2009 and subsequently convicted in 
November 2011 of seven counts of indecent liberties with a child and 
indecent liberties with a student, and sentenced to 18-22 months in 
prison on each count, consecutively. 

Case C: 

As discussed in the report, sexual abuse and misconduct by school 
personnel may include a range of behavior. In some cases, behavior by 
school personnel that is not criminal may still be inappropriate. In 
November 2006, the mother of a 16-year-old female student contacted 
the local police department with an allegation of an inappropriate 
relationship between her daughter and a female high school teacher/ 
softball coach. The mother became concerned after she: 

* found letters in her daughter's purse that she suspected were from 
the teacher; 

* became aware of her daughter skipping classes to stay in the 
teacher's classroom; 

* found out that her daughter had been seen on the athletic track with 
the teacher; 

* learned that the teacher had driven her daughter home from school; 
and: 

* realized that her daughter had visited the teacher's residence. 

In response, the police initiated an investigation that found that the 
relationship between the teacher and the student had progressed to a 
sexual relationship. Although the teacher was prosecuted and convicted 
of sexual assault, the state supreme court later overturned the 
teacher's criminal conviction because the student had reached the 
state's age of consent at the time of the sexual relationship. 
Following this case, the state changed its law to provide that 
consensual sex between a student and teacher, who has supervisory or 
disciplinary authority over the student, constitutes sexual assault 
even if the student is at or past the age of consent. The student was 
not in the teacher's class, but the court recognized that, on 
occasion, the student was subject to the teacher's authority while she 
was assigned to cafeteria duty and, as a student in the school, is 
expected to obey teachers because they are faculty members. 

In addition, as discussed in more detail in the body of this report, 
preventative measures such as training may not necessarily prevent 
sexual abuse or misconduct by school personnel. In this case, the 
teacher, according to the principal, would have received annual 
training that identified standards of conduct for educators, which 
included what constitutes inappropriate behaviors between school 
personnel and students. 

Case D: 

As discussed in the report, addressing allegations of sexual abuse or 
misconduct by school personnel can be facilitated by communication 
between the various agencies involved. In 2011, a mother reported to 
the local police department an allegation of an inappropriate 
relationship between her son, who was 17 years old at the time, and 
his former middle school bus driver. The mother made the report after 
finding suspicious items, including three pairs of women's panties and 
photos of the female bus driver, clothed, on her son's USB flash 
drive. The police interviewed her son, who told the detective that he 
and the bus driver loved each other and planned to get married when he 
turned 18 years old. He further stated to police that in 2009, when he 
was 15 years old, the bus driver engaged in a sexual encounter with 
him. The police immediately arrested the bus driver, who confessed to 
the sexual encounter during their initial interviews. The police 
formally notified the school district, per an agreement between law 
enforcement and the school district, and the bus driver was placed on 
suspension. The investigation revealed that the incident was a 
singular sexual encounter and did not identify other victims or prior 
complaints of inappropriate contact or allegations involving students 
against the bus driver. The bus driver was convicted in 2012 of taking 
indecent liberties with a child, received a sentence of 5 years in 
prison (of which 4 were suspended and 1 was stayed for 10 years), and 
was ordered to register as a sex offender, have no contact with the 
victim, obtain treatment from a licensed therapist, and to make a one-
time restitution payment to the victim to cover the cost of his 
counseling treatment. Upon the conviction, the school district 
terminated the bus driver's employment. Law enforcement officials who 
investigated the case reported that they had a good working 
relationship with the school district. 

Case E: 

In another example of inter-agency cooperation, in August 2011, a 
mother contacted the county sheriff's office to report allegations of 
inappropriate text messages and pornographic images on her 16-year-old 
daughter's cell phone from a male high school coach. Upon receiving 
the initial report, the sheriff's office notified school officials 
about the allegation and worked collaboratively with the school 
district to ensure appropriate administrative action. The principal 
said that at the time the high school did not have a policy that 
prohibited educators from interacting with students by cell phone or 
Internet. During interviews with detectives, the coach admitted that 
he sent inappropriate messages and images to the victim. In September 
2011, the coach pled guilty to a charge of sexual battery of a minor 
and was sentenced to a term of 10 years. The sentence was suspended 
and he was placed on probation for 10 years and required to register 
as a sex offender. While there were no formal policies or procedures 
for how the prosecutor or detective worked with school officials, such 
collaboration did occur in this case. The prosecutor's office obtained 
a conviction of sexual battery of a minor within 30 days of the 
initial report. The detective said the outcome of the investigation 
could not have been any better. He said they were able to investigate 
the crime and obtain a guilty plea in a short period of time - 
crediting the prosecuting attorney and cooperation they received from 
family and school personnel. 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Education: 

United States Department of Education: 
The Assistant Secretary: 
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education: 
400 Maryland Ave., SW: 
Washington, D.C. 20202: 

December 18, 2013: 

Ms. Kay E. Brown: 
Director: 
Education, Workforce, and income Security Issues: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, NW: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Ms. Brown: 

I am writing in response to the recommendations made in the U.S. 
Government Accountability Office (GAO) draft report, "Child Welfare: 
Federal Agencies Can Better Support State Efforts to Prevent and 
Respond to Sexual Abuse by School Personnel" (GAO-14-42). I appreciate 
the opportunity (0 comment on the draft report on behalf of the
U.S. Department of Education (Department). 

We appreciate GAO's thorough review of how states, school districts, 
and the federal government address child sexual abuse by public K~12 
school personnel. The Department shares the view, outlined in the 
report, that sexual abuse by school personnel raises particular 
concerns because of the trust placed with schools. Child sexual abuse 
has a wide array of significant detrimental consequences on the 
physical, psychological, academic, and behavioral development of 
children. As this report acknowledges, the Department has voluntarily 
undertaken efforts to address the issue of sexual abuse of students. 
Still, there remains much that needs to be done. 

The report has offered recommendations. and we provide our responses 
to these recommendations below in addressing this most important issue. 

Recommendations: In order to help inform federal, stale, and local 
initiatives to prevent and respond to child sexual abuse by school 
personnel, the Secretary of Education should lead an effort, in 
collaboration with the Secretary of HHS and the Attorney General, to
leverage resources, expertise, and capacities across the departments 
to: 

* Develop a comprehensive package of materials for states, districts, 
and schools that outlines steps that can be taken to prevent and 
respond to child sexual abuse by school personnel. For example, this 
couLd include compiling, assessing, and enhancing information on 
existing guidance, training materials, grant opportunities, and other 
resources; 

* Determine the most cost-effective way to disseminate federal 
information so that relevant state and local educational agencies, 
child welfare agencies, and criminal justice entities are aware of and 
have access to it; and; 

* Identify mechanisms to better track and analyze the prevalence of 
child sexual abuse by school personnel through existing federal data 
collection systems, such as the School Survey on Crime and Safety, the 
National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System, and the National Crime 
Victimization Survey. 

Response: While state and local agencies in education, child welfare, 
and criminal justice systems lead the efforts to prevent, detect, and 
respond to cases of sexual abuse of and misconduct toward students by 
public K-12 school personnel, the Department agrees that there is an 
important federal role in adequately informing and equipping these 
partners to address the prevention of and response to child sexual 
abuse by school personnel. The Department is taking action to revise 
its Adult Sexual Misconduct training module offered through the Office 
of Safe and Healthy Students to target a wider audience, including
school volunteers. In addition, the Department will explore ways, 
given available resources, to collaborate with the Departments of 
Health and Human Services and Justice to develop resources and provide 
more comprehensive technical assistance, in a cost-effective manner, 
to our various stakeholders. To the extent possible, the Department will
explore methods to better track and analyze the prevalence of child 
sexual abuse by school person!::l. In addition, although the Federal 
government is well positioned to help States and localities address 
these issues, the Department believes it is vital that all states have a
policy requiring background checks of all adults working with students. 

Recommendation: To help ensure that Title IX requirements to prevent 
and address sexual harassment, including sexual abuse and misconduct 
by school personnel against students, are carried out appropriately at 
public K-12 schools, the Secretary of Education should clarify and 
disseminate information on the roles and responsibilities of Title IX
coordinators and more clearly emphasize that Title IX also applies to 
public K-12 schools and to cases involving school personnel-to-student 
sexual abuse and misconduct. For example, Education could update its 
existing Title IX guidance to specifically include information about 
adult-to-student sexual abuse and the applicability of Title IX to K-12
schools, examples of the types of behavior that may violate Title IX, 
and instructions on how to ensure school personnel can effectively 
carry out their responsibilities. 

Response: The Department shares GAO's interest in clarifying and 
disseminating information about the protections available to K-12 
students who are sexually abused or mistreated by school personnel. 
The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) is currently developing guidance on 
peer sexual violence that will supplement its existing body of 
guidance on sexual harassment. In that document, OCR will again make 
clear that Title IX applies to sexual harassment at the K-12 and post-
secondary levels and remind schools that Title IX also prohibits 
sexual harassment of students by employees, as it will reiterate 
principles from OCR's prior guidance, Revised Sexual Harassment 
Guidance: Harassment of Students by School Employees, Other Students, 
or Third Parties (2001), which included a section entitled "Harassment 
by Teachers and Other Employees," as well as Sexual Harassment: It's 
Not Academic (2008), which stated numerous times that employee-on-
student sexual harassment is prohibited under Title IX. The new 
document will also provide clarity and information on the roles and 
responsibilities of Title IX coordinators. Additionally, OCR plans to 
develop policy guidance focusing on schools' requirement to designate 
a Title IX coordinator and explaining coordinators' roles and 
responsibilities in the K-12 and post-secondary settings. These 
resources will make clear that Title IX prohibits sexual harassment of 
students, including sexual abuse and misconduct by school personnel, 
and that Title IX coordinators are responsible for overseeing and 
coordinating a school's obligation to respond to sexual harassment of 
which it knows or reasonably should know, including sexual harassment 
by school employees. 

We appreciate me opportunity to review the draft report and comment on 
the recommendations. I am also enclosing a document with technical 
comments. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Deborah S. Delisle: 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Kay Brown, (202) 512-7215 or brownke@gao.gov. 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the contact named above, individuals making key 
contributions to this report were Sara Schibanoff Kelly, Assistant 
Director; Melissa Jaynes; Avani Locke; and Claudine Pauselli. Also 
contributing to this report were James Bennett, Gary Bianchi, Sarah 
Cornetto, Paul Desaulniers, Holly Dye, Wayne McElrath, Joel Marus, 
Jean McSween, Ramon Rodriguez, Almeta Spencer, Julie Spetz, and Helina 
Wong. 

[End of section] 

Related GAO Products: 

Child Care: Overview of Relevant Employment Laws and Cases of Sex 
Offenders at Child Care Facilities. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-757]. Washington, D.C.: August 19, 
2011. 

Child Maltreatment: Strengthening National Data on Child Fatalities 
Could Aid in Prevention. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-599]. Washington, D.C.: July 7, 
2011. 

K-12 Education: Selected Cases of Public and Private Schools That 
Hired or Retained Individuals with Histories of Sexual Misconduct. 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-200]. Washington, D.C.: 
December 8, 2010. 

Seclusions and Restraints: Selected Cases of Death and Abuse at Public 
and Private Schools and Treatment Centers. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-719T]. Washington, D.C.: May 19, 
2009. 

Residential Facilities: Improved Data and Enhanced Oversight Would 
Help Safeguard the Well-Being of Youth with Behavioral and Emotional 
Challenges. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-346]. 
Washington, D.C.: May 13, 2008. 

Residential Treatment Programs: Concerns Regarding Abuse and Death in 
Certain Programs for Troubled Youth. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-146T]. Washington, D.C.: October 
10, 2007. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] Definitions of sexual abuse may vary from state to state. For 
example, sexual abuse may be defined in general terms or by specifying 
various acts as sexual abuse, such as rape, molestation, or sexual 
assault. For purposes of this report, we consider sexual abuse to 
include any sexual activity involving a child that is a crime under 
applicable state law. 

[2] For the purposes of this review, school personnel includes a wide 
variety of positions including, but not limited to, school district 
administrators, principals, teachers, paraprofessionals, school 
nurses, coaches, guidance counselors, school psychologists, school 
cafeteria staff, janitors, and school bus drivers. 

[3] Shakeshaft, C, Educator Sexual Misconduct: A Synthesis of the 
Literature, U.S. Department of Education, 2004. The estimate provided 
in the report is the most recent information available on the 
prevalence of such abuse and misconduct and is based on secondary 
analysis of data collected for the American Association of University 
Women in Fall 2000 from a sample of 8TH through 11TH grade students in 
80,000 schools and focused on experiences that occurred in school. 

[4] Definitions of sexual misconduct may also vary by state and may 
include a variety of behaviors. For example, sexual misconduct could 
include any verbal or physical activity directed toward a child that 
is sexual in nature and designed to establish a romantic or sexual 
relationship with the child. Sexual misconduct may eventually lead to 
sexual abuse, but may not be considered a criminal act in and of 
itself, although it may be considered a violation of other laws, 
regulations, or professional codes of conduct. Although we primarily 
use the terms sexual abuse and misconduct in this report, we 
occasionally may use alternative terms that encompass related issues, 
such as child maltreatment or sexual violence. 

[5] Robert J. Shoop, Sexual Exploitation in Schools: How to Spot It 
and Stop It (2004). 

[6] As a condition of receiving federal funding under the Child Abuse 
Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA), as amended, states must comply 
with certain requirements, including establishing a state mandatory 
reporting law. 42 U.S.C. § 5106a(b)(2). 

[7] For the purposes of this report, child welfare refers to all types 
of child welfare agencies and includes state and local child 
protective service agencies, which specifically address child abuse 
and neglect. Similarly, criminal justice refers to all types of 
criminal justice entities and includes law enforcement agencies, 
attorneys general offices, district attorneys' offices, and the courts. 

[8] Pub. L. No. 92-318, tit. IX, 86 Stat. 235, 373-75 (codified as 
amended at 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681-88). See also 34 C.F.R. pt. 106. Title IX 
generally provides that "no person … shall, on the basis of sex, be 
excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be 
subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity 
receiving Federal financial assistance." The Supreme Court has held 
that sex discrimination includes sexual harassment. See Franklin v. 
Gwinnett County Pub. Sch., 503 U.S. 60, 75 (1992) (citing Meritor Sav. 
Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 64 (1986)). Each federal agency that 
provides financial assistance is responsible for enforcing Title IX. 

[9] Education's definition of sexual harassment prohibited under Title 
IX includes unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature that is sufficiently 
serious as to deny or limit a student's ability to participate in or 
benefit from a school's education program or activity. It may be 
committed by other students, school employees or non-employee third 
parties. See OCR, Revised Sexual Harassment Guidance: Harassment of 
Students by School Employees, Other Students, or Third Parties 
(Washington D.C.: January 2001). For the purposes of this review, we 
focused on cases involving school personnel-to-student sexual abuse or 
misconduct in the K-12 setting. 

[10] 34 C.F.R. §§ 106.8 - 106.9. 

[11] 34 C.F.R. § 106.3(a). According to OCR guidance, in determining 
whether a school has violated Title IX, OCR will consider whether a 
school is in compliance with the regulations, whether it appropriately 
investigated and responded to allegations of sexual harassment, and 
whether it has taken corrective action to end the harassment, prevent 
its recurrence, and, as appropriate, remedy its effects. OCR is 
required to make schools aware of potential Title IX violations and to 
seek voluntary corrective action. If OCR is unable to negotiate a 
settlement with the school, OCR may initiate an enforcement action to 
suspend or terminate federal financial assistance, or refer the case 
to the Department of Justice. See 20 U.S.C. § 1682. 

[12] In addition to drug and violence prevention activities, OSHS 
administers, coordinates, and recommends policy for improving programs 
and activities that are designed to provide financial assistance for 
activities that promote the health and well-being of students and 
school preparedness activities that contribute to improved conditions 
for learning. For the purposes of this review, we focus on those OSHS 
grants and projects related to violence prevention in schools. 

[13] Pub. L. No. 107-110, §§ 4001-4155, 115 Stat. 1425, 1734-65 (2002) 
(codified at 20 U.S.C. §§ 7101-65). Awards were last made under these 
grants in fiscal year 2012. Funding was only awarded to pre-existing 
programs and at reduced funding levels. 

[14] Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-279, §§ 
151-58, 116 Stat. 1940, 1957-62 (codified as amended at 20 U.S.C. §§ 
9541-48). 

[15] 20 U.S.C. § 9543(a)(1)(H). 

[16] The types of positions within schools that require a state 
educator license vary by state. 

[17] P. Keaton, Selected Statistics From the Common Core of Data: 
School Year 2011-12, NCES 2013-441, U.S. Department of Education, 
National Center for Education Statistics (Washington, D.C.: 2013). 

[18] Child welfare programs aim to protect children from both abuse 
and neglect; however, neglect is generally not applicable in 
situations of abuse or misconduct by school personnel. 

[19] Pub. L. No. 93-247, 88 Stat. 4 (1974) (codified as amended at 42 
U.S.C. § 5101 et. seq.). See also 45 C.F.R. pt. 1340. 

[20] 42 U.S.C. § 5106a(b)(2)(B)(i). CAPTA does not require states to 
provide a penalty for failure to report child abuse or neglect, nor 
does it address where such a report is to be made. 

[21] 42 U.S.C. § 5106a(b)(2)(B)(iv), (v), (vi). 

[22] 42 U.S.C. § 5106a(b)(2)(B)(xi). 

[23] 42 U.S.C. § 5106a(b)(2)(B)(vii). 

[24] These grants were originally authorized by the CJA, which amended 
CAPTA Pub. L. No. 99-401, tit. I, 100 Stat. 903, 903-07 (1986) 
(codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. § 5106c). Only states that are 
eligible for the basic state grants under CAPTA can apply for CJA 
grants. 

[25] U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Children's Bureau, 
Child Welfare Information Gateway, Cross-Reporting Among Responders to 
Child Abuse and Neglect (Washington, D.C.: 2013). 

[26] 42 U.S.C. § 5101 note. 

[27] 42 U.S.C. § 5106g. 

[28] According to HHS, as of August 2012, New Jersey and Wyoming were 
the only two states that had not enumerated specific professional 
groups as mandatory reporters, but required all persons to report. 
Department of Health and Human Services, Children's Bureau, Child 
Welfare Information Gateway, Mandatory Reporters of Child Abuse and 
Neglect, (Washington, D.C.: June 2012). 

[29] Child Abuse Prevention, Adoption, and Family Services Act of 
1988, Pub. L. No. 100-294, sec. 101, § 6(b)(1), 102 Stat. 102, 107. 

[30] See 42 U.S.C. §§ 5104, 5105(a). 

[31] HHS' National Resource Centers provide technical assistance in 
specific focus areas with the goal of helping agencies, managers, 
family and juvenile courts, and other child welfare professionals 
better serve children and families. 

[32] Justice plays a more involved role when activities involving a 
student could constitute a federal crime, such as when mail or the 
Internet is used to sexually abuse children. Such crimes were outside 
of the scope of this review. 

[33] OJJDP administers grants and other activities under the Juvenile 
Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, as amended, Pub. L. 
No. 93-415, 88 Stat. 1109 (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. § 5601 et 
seq.). 

[34] The Federal Bureau of Investigation's Interstate Identification 
Index is an automated information system used to exchange criminal 
history records and related information between federal, state, and 
local criminal justice agencies, for this purpose. The index includes 
arrest and conviction information voluntarily reported by federal, 
state, and local agencies. Other federal sources include Justice's 
national sex offender public registry, which is a publicly available 
web-based tool that can be used to search for sex offenders by name 
and/or location. See [hyperlink, http://www.nsopw.gov/en-
US/Home/About]. The national sex offender public registry is a 
cooperative effort between state agencies that host public sex 
offender registries and the federal government. The website is 
operated by Justice. 

[35] According to NASDTEC, the clearinghouse contains information 
about teacher education and certified personnel in all 50 states, U.S. 
territories, and the Canadian provinces. 

[36] According to policy in this district, active volunteers are 
required to have a background check at least every 2 years. 

[37] GAO, K-12 Education: Selected Cases of Public and Private Schools 
That Hired or Retained Individuals with Histories of Sexual 
Misconduct, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-200] 
(Washington, D.C.: Dec. 8, 2010). 

[38] The National Employment Law Project, a non-profit advocacy 
organization in support of low-wage and unemployed workers, recently 
released a report which cites inaccuracies and missing critical 
information in background checks conducted by the FBI. According to 
the report, because states do not routinely update information 
following initial arrests to the FBI, such records often lack final 
disposition information, such as updated information on charges that 
have been dismissed. Consequently, applicants may be denied employment 
based on unsubstantiated and erroneous charges. Madeline Neighly and 
Maurice Emsellem, Wanted: Accurate FBI Background Checks for 
Employment (National Employment Law Project, July 2013). 

[39] License requirements may vary from state to state. School 
personnel that generally do not hold professional licenses from the 
state educational agency or state licensing agency include, for 
example, janitors, and school bus drivers. 

[40] The policy in this school district states that on a case-by-case 
basis, administrators may make exceptions to this requirement in the 
event of emergencies or unusual circumstances. 

[41] Our survey did not directly assess whether or to what extent 
states provided training on mandatory reporting requirements to school 
personnel. 

[42] According to officials, the district requires training for all 
staff who interact with students, including athletic coaches. In 
addition, the student training module is video-based and intended as a 
training component for 9TH grade health courses. 

[43] According to school district officials, in order to be licensed 
by that state, teachers currently must complete an online training 
module on their responsibilities as mandatory reporters of suspected 
child abuse and neglect and certify the course's completion. 

[44] Specifically, 46 states responded that their state laws identify 
school personnel as mandatory reporters for sexual abuse while 41 
states do so for sexual misconduct. 

[45] This state's mandatory reporting law also includes other 
professions as mandatory reporters, such as physicians, nurses, and 
social workers, in addition to employees at the K-12 level. The recent 
amendments to the state's mandatory reporting law also added employees 
of public and private institutions of postsecondary and higher 
education. 

[46] The law of another state we visited provides that violation of 
the state's mandatory reporting requirements shall be punished by a 
fine of not more than $1,000. The law also provides for additional 
fines and possible imprisonment for certain types of violations, such 
as knowingly and willfully filing frivolous reports, or willfully 
failing to report known child abuse or neglect that resulted in 
serious bodily injury to or death of a child. 

[47] States that receive federal funding under CAPTA are required to 
have a state law or statewide program that includes the cooperation of 
state law enforcement officials, courts of competent jurisdiction, and 
appropriate state agencies providing human services in the 
investigation, assessment, prosecution and treatment of child abuse 
and neglect. 

[48] Saul J, Audage NC. Preventing Child Sexual Abuse Within Youth-
serving Organizations: Getting Started on Policies and Procedures, 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury 
Prevention and Control (2007). The recommendations contained in this 
resource are based upon comments from experts at a meeting sponsored 
by CDC in August 2004. 

[49] According to CDC officials, this program ended in 2008. 

[50] Funding for CJA grants comes from the Crime Victims Fund (CVF), 
which is administered by Justice's Office for Victims of Crime (OVC). 
The CVF, initially established by the Victims of Crime Act of 1984, is 
funded by fines and penalties paid by convicted federal offenders. 
Each year OVC transfers approximately $17 million from the CVF to HHS' 
Administration on Children and Families to make grants under section 
107 of CAPTA, as amended. HHS then distributes these funds to states 
through formula grants in the amount of $50,000 to each state, plus an 
additional amount based on the population of children under 18 years 
of age in the applicant's jurisdiction. Additionally, OVC retains a 
portion of the CVF for a discretionary grant program that provides 
resources to tribal communities to improve the investigation and 
prosecution of child abuse. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 10601-08. 

[51] Under the Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990, as amended, OJJDP 
also provides grant funding to the National Children's Alliance and 
the Regional Children's Advocacy Centers program to establish and 
enhance local CACs and the multidisciplinary response to child abuse 
throughout the United States. Funding under the Victims of Child Abuse 
Act also supports the delivery of training and technical assistance to 
child abuse professionals and prosecutors to improve the investigation 
and prosecution of child abuse. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 13001-004. 

[52] 20 U.S.C. § 9543(a)(1)(H). 

[53] The CRDC collects information about school characteristics and 
about programs, services, and outcomes for students. Among the topics 
included are students' participation in algebra and other college-
preparatory subjects, retention, teacher experience/absenteeism, 
school funding, harassment, restraint/seclusion, and additional 
information related to discipline. The 2009-2010 CRDC collection 
included the first of its kind school and district level reporting of 
harassment. However, many districts were unable to provide complete 
data on students reported to have been harassed, and incidents by type 
of harassment. As a result, these data may be underestimated. 

[54] Reports by state child welfare agencies to NCANDS are identified 
as "substantiated/founded" or "unsubstantiated/unfounded". 

[55] Pub. L. No. 111-352, 124 Stat. 3866 (2011) (amending Pub. L. No. 
103-62, 107 Stat. 285). 

[56] GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1] 
(Washington, D.C.: November 1999). 

[57] U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, Revised 
Sexual Harassment Guidance: Harassment of Students by School 
Employees, Other Students, or Third Parties (Washington, D.C.: January 
2001). 

[58] U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, Sexual 
Harassment: It's Not Academic (Washington D.C.: 2008). 

[59] As of August 2013, Connecticut, New Mexico, and West Virginia had 
not provided responses to our follow-up question. 

[End of section] 

GAO’s Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the 
performance and accountability of the federal government for the 
American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates 
federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, 
and other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, 
and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is 
reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and 
reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO’s website [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, 
testimony, and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select 
“E-mail Updates.” 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black 
and white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s 
website, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

Connect with GAO: 

Connect with GAO on facebook, flickr, twitter, and YouTube.
Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
Visit GAO on the web at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 
Website: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]; 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov; 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470. 

Congressional Relations: 

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, DC 20548. 

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, DC 20548. 

[End of document]