Child Care
Overview of Relevant Employment Laws and Cases of Sex Offenders at Child Care Facilities Gao ID: GAO-11-757 August 19, 2011Very little is known about sexual abuse among children that are regularly cared for by more than 1.3 million child care providers every week in the United States. In this context, GAO was asked to (1) provide an overview of federal and state laws related to the employment of sex offenders at child care facilities and (2) examine cases where individuals who were convicted of serious sexual offenses were subsequently employed or present at child care facilities. To provide an overview of selected laws, GAO searched for prohibitions against offenders being present at child care facilities, requirements for conducting criminal-history checks, and penalties for violating these requirements. The cases GAO examined focus only on individuals who were convicted of serious sexual offenses and cannot be generalized to all child care facilities. To identify the cases, GAO reviewed open-source information from 2000 to 2010. GAO also compared the years 2007 to 2009 in employment databases from 20 states and the District of Columbia to data in the National Sex Offender Registry. GAO ultimately selected 10 cases from eight states and the District of Columbia for review. For each case, GAO reviewed court documents and interviewed law enforcement personnel. Our methodology was not designed to assess the prevalence of sex offenders working at child care facilities. This product contains no recommendations. Where applicable, GAO referred its cases for further investigation.
Federal laws regulate the employment of sex offenders at federal child care facilities. For example, federally operated facilities are required to conduct criminal-history checks on employees, as are facilities receiving grants from the Department of Health and Human Services' Head Start program. At the state level, laws vary widely. For example, all 50 states require criminal-history checks for owners and employees of licensed child care facilities, but many state laws exempt facilities from licensing if they do not exceed certain thresholds, such as a minimum number of children. Penalties for violating licensing requirements can range from a $5 administrative fine to imprisonment for a term of years. The cases GAO examined show examples of individuals convicted of serious sexual offenses who gained access to child care facilities as maintenance workers, spouses or friends of providers, a cafeteria worker, and a cook. At least seven of these cases involve offenders who previously targeted children, and in three of the cases, the offenders used their access to children at the facilities to offend again. Among the cases, GAO found instances of providers who (1) knowingly hired offenders and (2) did not perform preemployment criminal-history checks. GAO also found examples of facilities operating without licenses, and facilities that employed offenders while receiving federal funds. The following four cases illustrate the nature of the situations GAO identified.
GAO-11-757, Child Care: Overview of Relevant Employment Laws and Cases of Sex Offenders at Child Care Facilities
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-11-757
entitled 'Child Care: Overview of Relevant Employment Laws and Cases
of Sex Offenders at Child Care Facilities' which was released on
September 13, 2011.
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:
August 2011:
Child Care:
Overview of Relevant Employment Laws and Cases of Sex Offenders at
Child Care Facilities:
GAO-11-757:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-11-757, a report to Ranking Member, Committee on
Education and the Workforce, House of Representatives.
Why GAO Did This Study:
Very little is known about sexual abuse among children that are
regularly cared for by more than 1.3 million child care providers
every week in the United States. In this context, GAO was asked to (1)
provide an overview of federal and state laws related to the
employment of sex offenders at child care facilities and (2) examine
cases where individuals who were convicted of serious sexual offenses
were subsequently employed or present at child care facilities.
To provide an overview of selected laws, GAO searched for prohibitions
against offenders being present at child care facilities, requirements
for conducting criminal-history checks, and penalties for violating
these requirements. The cases GAO examined focus only on individuals
who were convicted of serious sexual offenses and cannot be
generalized to all child care facilities. To identify the cases, GAO
reviewed open-source information from 2000 to 2010. GAO also compared
the years 2007 to 2009 in employment databases from 20 states and the
District of Columbia to data in the National Sex Offender Registry.
GAO ultimately selected 10 cases from eight states and the District of
Columbia for review. For each case, GAO reviewed court documents and
interviewed law enforcement personnel. Our methodology was not
designed to assess the prevalence of sex offenders working at child-
care facilities. This product contains no recommendations. Where
applicable, GAO referred its cases for further investigation.
What GAO Found:
Federal laws regulate the employment of sex offenders at federal child-
care facilities. For example, federally operated facilities are
required to conduct criminal-history checks on employees, as are
facilities receiving grants from the Department of Health and Human
Services‘ Head Start program. At the state level, laws vary widely.
For example, all 50 states require criminal-history checks for owners
and employees of licensed child care facilities, but many state laws
exempt facilities from licensing if they do not exceed certain
thresholds, such as a minimum number of children. Penalties for
violating licensing requirements can range from a $5 administrative
fine to imprisonment for a term of years.
The cases GAO examined show examples of individuals convicted of
serious sexual offenses who gained access to child care facilities as
maintenance workers, spouses or friends of providers, a cafeteria
worker, and a cook. At least seven of these cases involve offenders
who previously targeted children, and in three of the cases, the
offenders used their access to children at the facilities to offend
again. Among the cases, GAO found instances of providers who (1)
knowingly hired offenders and (2) did not perform preemployment
criminal-history checks. GAO also found examples of facilities
operating without licenses, and facilities that employed offenders
while receiving federal funds. The following four cases illustrate the
nature of the situations GAO identified.
Table: Examples of Cases GAO Examined:
Location: Missouri;
Case details:
* When investigating allegations of child abuse, state officials and
police found unsafe conditions and a maintenance worker previously
convicted of attempted child molestation working at an unlicensed
facility.
* The facility claimed to operate as a school but investigators found
no evidence to support that claim or that the owner of the facility
completed a criminal-history check on the offender. In March 2004, the
provider pled guilty to felony child endangerment and received 3 years
of probation.
Location: Kentucky;
Case details:
* An owner of a licensed child care facility hired a cook to work in
her cafeteria in January 2008 because she wanted to help him, even
though she knew that he had been convicted for sexually abusing a woman.
* An investigation by state agencies led to the suspension of the
owner‘s license. She revoked her right to appeal and closed the
facility.
Location: Washington, D.C.
Case details:
* This offender‘s parents hired him to work as a janitor in a licensed
child care facility that received at least $1 million in federal
assistance, even though he had been convicted for attempting to
sexually abuse a young girl.
* In March 2011, after GAO referred the case to the D.C. licensing
department, the parents were told to fire their son or lose their
license.
Location: New York;
Case details:
* A man convicted for sexually abusing a minor was hired as a janitor
in 2007 by an organization that operated multiple licensed child care
facilities.
* The organization, which received over $750,000 in federal
assistance, did not conduct a criminal history check on the offender.
His employment was eventually terminated due to downsizing.
Source: State and local agencies, GAO.
Note: The data are from records including police reports, court
documents, and interviews.
[End of table]
View GAO-11-757. For more information, contact Richard Hillman at
(202) 512-6722 or hillmanr@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Background:
Overview of Federal and State Laws Related to the Employment of Sex
Offenders at Child Care Facilities:
Cases of Child Care Facilities That Employed or Provided Residence to
Sex Offenders:
Appendix I: Summary of State Laws Related to the Employment of Sex
Offenders at Child Care Facilities:
Tables:
Table 1: Types of Child Care:
Table 2: Examples of Sex Offenders at Child-Care Facilities:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
August 19, 2011:
The Honorable George Miller:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Education and the Workforce:
House of Representatives:
Dear Mr. Miller:
We have previously reported on cases in which children were being
physically abused at youth residential treatment facilities and
sexually abused at public and private schools.[Footnote 1] However,
very little is known about the extent of sexual abuse among children
that are regularly cared for by an estimated 1.3 million child care
providers every week in the United States as of 2008. The victims of
these crimes are typically 12 years old or younger--and according to
the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) National Incident-Based
Reporting System, crimes against children make up a large majority of
sexual assaults handled by law enforcement agencies. In this context,
and as a follow-on to our December 2010 report on individuals with
histories of sexual misconduct in K-12 public and private schools, we
agreed to (1) provide an overview of relevant federal and state laws
related to the employment of sex offenders at child care facilities
and (2) examine cases where individuals who were convicted of serious
sexual offenses were subsequently employed or present at child care
facilities.
To provide an overview of selected federal and state laws, we searched
statutory codes for prohibitions against sexual offenders working or
being present in child care facilities, requirements for conducting
criminal-history checks, and penalties for violating these
requirements. At the state level, we focused solely on statutory
provisions because of their greater degree of permanence. We did not
analyze state regulations or policies, or any laws, regulations, or
policies at the local level. Additional requirements can be added
through regulation by states or at the local level, and these may go
beyond what is specified in state statute.
To identify case-study examples of child care facilities that employed
or provided residence to registered sexual offenders who committed
serious sexual offenses, we performed searches of open-source
information and public records and used database matching techniques
described in greater detail below.[Footnote 2] Our methodology was not
designed to assess the prevalence of sex offenders working at child-
care facilities; nor can it establish the effectiveness of statutes
and legislation designed to prevent such occurrences. First, we
compared social security numbers (SSN) that we obtained from the
Department of Justice's (DOJ) National Sex Offender Registry (NSOR)
to SSNs in employment databases maintained by 20 states and the
District of Columbia for the years 2007 to 2009. These states and
the District of Columbia are not a generalizable sample, but
illustrate geographic diversity. From this comparison, we
identified 24 potential cases of registered sex offenders working at
child care facilities. We identified the facilities by searching the
data that we compiled through our comparisons for employers whose
business names contained terms such as "children," "child care,"
and "daycare." The cases we identified focus only on individuals who
were convicted of serious sexual offenses prior to being employed at
child care facilities and cannot be generalized to all child care
facilities. It is possible that our search did not capture sex
offenders whose names or social security numbers were inaccurate in
NSOR or employment data or who worked at facilities that were not
readily identifiable as child care providers, or whose employers
did not properly report the sex offender's employment to the state,
nor would it capture instances where a registered sex offender was
merely present at the child care facility, but was not employed.
To identify additional potential case-study examples, we searched open-
source information for reports of individuals who committed serious
sexual offenses and gained access to child care facilities. We
reviewed open sources published between the years 2000 through 2010.
Open-source information refers to publicly available information, and
may include information obtained from sources such as the media and
public data. It is a key component of traditional law-enforcement,
intelligence, and other information-gathering agencies, such as the
Central Intelligence Agency. To determine whether the preliminary
listing of cases resulting from the above data matches and searches of
open-source information was sufficient, we confirmed that both of the
following criteria had been met: (1) the individual was a convicted
sex offender before he gained employment or was present at the child-
care facility and (2) the individual was convicted of a serious sexual
offense, to include crimes against children or a violent sexual
offense, or both.
To refine the list from which to select further cases for review, we
attempted to validate the identity of each offender and verify that he
was employed or present at a child care facility at some time during
2000 through 2010. We excluded from consideration cases where we could
not obtain records or immediately confirm the offender's identity and
employment. Further, we interviewed related parties, law-enforcement
officials, or representatives from state agencies to validate and
investigate the facts in each case. Where applicable and available, we
reviewed police reports, and other court documents.
Ultimately, through a combination of our data matching, review of open-
source information, public records, and interviews, and by focusing on
the offenders who had been convicted of serious sexual offenses in the
past, to include violent sexual offenses and crimes involving
children, we selected 10 cases from eight states and the District of
Columbia. Of these cases, 8 were selected from open-source information
while the remaining 2 were selected from our comparison of SSNs in the
NSOR with SSNs in employment databases. The 8 cases selected from open-
source information cover the years 2002 to 2010. These examples are
not representative of the hiring practices of any child care
facilities beyond those highlighted in the report.
To the extent possible, we conducted searches to determine whether the
sex offenders in our cases had previous criminal histories or were the
subject of previous allegations of abuse. In addition, although the
focus of our investigation was not to determine whether the child care
facilities in our cases received public funds, during our
investigation we observed that some of these child care facilities did
in fact receive public funding. In these cases, we obtained
information from relevant federal, state, and city agencies indicating
whether the facility received federal assistance from the Department
of Health and Human Services' (HHS) Head Start program or its Child
Care Development Fund (CCDF) while a sex offender was employed or a
resident in the home of a child care provider. Although our 10 case
studies highlight issues or processes that may have contributed to the
employment or presence of sex offenders at the child care facilities
that we included in our report, the circumstances of each case are
unique and cannot be generalized to all child care facilities.
We performed our work from April 2010 to August 2011 in accordance
with standards prescribed by the Council of the Inspectors General on
Integrity and Efficiency.
Background:
Parents who need child care services select from different types of
child care providers: in-home care, in which a child is cared for by a
provider such as an au pair or nanny in the child's home; family child
care or group home care, in which the child is cared for in a private
residence other than the child's home;[Footnote 3] and center care, in
which a child is cared for by providers in a nonresidential setting,
such as in a church, school, or business. Additionally, care can be
provided by someone related to the child other than the parents, such
as grandparents, aunts, uncles, or siblings, which is referred to as
relative care. See table 1.
Table 1: Types of Child Care:
Type: In-home care;
Description: Care provided in the child's home.
Type: Relative care;
Description: Care provided by someone related to the child other than
the parents in any setting, typically in the child's or relative's
home.
Type: Family child care;
Description: An individual provider who provides child care services
as the sole caregiver in a private residence other than the child's
home.
Type: Group home care;
Description: Two or more providers who provide child care services in
a private residence other than the child's home (this does not include
24-hour residential facilities).
Type: Child care centers;
Description: Nonresidential facilities that provide care for children
and include full-and part-time group programs, such as nursery and
preschool programs. Child care centers can be commercial, work-site
based, school-based (preschool or after school), or a recreational
program (such as camps or parks), and care can also be run by a
religious organizations or by federal, state, or local governments.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
In general, states and localities are responsible for regulating child
care providers and carry out this responsibility by (1) establishing
specific requirements that regulated child care providers must comply
with in order to legally operate; and (2) enforcing these requirements
through activities conducted by state licensing offices. The
stringency of the requirements with which providers must comply and
the scope and intensity of state enforcement activities differ among
the provider types within states as well as among states overall.
Many states do not regulate a significant number of providers. This
is because, given the competing priorities for limited funds as well
as other factors, states must make choices about the extent to which
they can conduct enforcement activities and the types of providers
to which these activities will apply. State policies regarding child
care regulation are also influenced by the supply of child care and
its cost to parents. Research has shown that some types of child care
regulation may increase the cost of doing business for providers,
particularly for small providers like family and group homes.
Overview of Federal and State Laws Related to the Employment of Sex
Offenders at Child Care Facilities:
Federal laws regulate the employment of sex offenders at federal child
care facilities, and widely divergent laws govern state child care
facilities, especially with regard to licensing requirements and
penalties. We did not analyze state regulations or policies, nor any
laws, regulations, or policies at the local level.[Footnote 4] In
addition, the scope of this review did not include a review of whether
these laws were effectively enforced. For a summary of laws related to
the employment of sex offenders at child care facilities in all 50
states, see appendix I.
Federal Laws. The National Child Protection Law of 1993 requires the
Department of Justice to conduct a criminal-history check at the
request of child care facilities or other youth-serving organizations.
[Footnote 5] This check allows for a fingerprint-based criminal-
history search of the FBI's National Crime Information Center
database. However, federal law does not require child care facilities
to use this service unless the facility is federally owned or operated
(or operated under a federal contract).[Footnote 6]
Other laws governing the employment of sex offenders relate to
facilities that receive federal grants. For example, Head Start
grantees must either conduct a state or national criminal record check
before hiring any employee, depending on state law requirements.
[Footnote 7] Grantees are prohibited from permanently hiring an
individual until these checks have been performed, although they may
conditionally hire an individual if it is not feasible to perform a
preemployment check. Employees are also required to sign a declaration
to all pending and prior criminal arrests and charges related to child
sexual abuse and their disposition, along with any convictions related
to other forms of child abuse and neglect and convictions of violent
felonies. Grantees are then required to determine whether the
individual is fit for employment based upon his or her criminal charge
or conviction. In addition to requirements for Head Start grantees,
CCDF requires that states certify to the federal government that they
have requirements in effect to protect the health and safety of
children in child care facilities who are subsidized with these funds.
However, the block grant does not dictate to states the specificity,
stringency, or number of requirements they must have or the manner in
which they should enforce them.[Footnote 8]
Prohibitions on Working in or Being Present at Child Care Facilities.
A majority of states have enacted laws to restrict sex offenders from
having access to child care facilities. Fifteen states impose broad
statutory restrictions that prohibit registered sex offenders from
entering or being a specified distance from childcare facilities.
[Footnote 9] Twenty-two states and the District of Columbia have
enacted statutes prohibiting sex offenders from serving as an owner,
operator, employee, or volunteer at a child care facility.[Footnote
10] Nine additional states more narrowly impose such a prohibition on
offenders whose victims were minors.[Footnote 11] Four states also
specifically prohibit sex offenders from residing at a facility that
provides child care services.[Footnote 12]
Criminal-History Check Requirements. Although it is not always clear
whether criminal-history checks need to be completed prior to
employment, all 50 states require such checks for owners and employees
of licensed child care facilities. However, the requirements for
licensing vary widely. Only 3 states appear to require criminal-
history checks for all licensed and unlicensed child care facilities,
[Footnote 13] while 11 states require that all facilities that receive
state or federal funds perform these checks.[Footnote 14] In addition,
23 states require criminal-history checks for adult residents at
licensed child care or group home facilities.[Footnote 15] Fourteen
states and the District of Columbia specifically require checks for
volunteers at licensed childcare facilities,[Footnote 16] and six
states specifically require criminal-history checks for contractors.
[Footnote 17] Finally, several states exempt child care facilities
associated with schools or religious organizations from the licensing
or criminal-history check requirements.
Method for Conducting Criminal-History Checks. The vast majority of
states require that criminal-history checks for employees and other
staff be fingerprint-based and be conducted in both national and state
databases, but many do not specify that the checks must be completed
prior to an employee's start date. In four states, statutes require
criminal-history checks, but they do not specify the use of either
national or state databases.[Footnote 18] In addition, five states
limit the check to state databases,[Footnote 19] while four states
require national database checks only if the employee or applicant has
not been a resident of the state for a specified period of time.
[Footnote 20] Four states require by statute that criminal-history
checks be performed at specified intervals.[Footnote 21]
Penalties for violations. All 50 states provide some type of penalty
for violating requirements related to the employment of sex offenders,
but these penalties vary widely. For example, 34 states and the
District of Columbia attach criminal penalties to licensing
requirement violations, failure of an owner or employee to disclose
criminal-history information, or failure to perform criminal-history
checks.[Footnote 22] In 29 states, violation of licensing requirements
and failure to perform criminal-history checks may result in civil
penalties or fines,[Footnote 23] ranging from $5 per violation
[Footnote 24] to $10,000 per violation.[Footnote 25]
Cases of Child Care Facilities That Employed or Provided Residence to
Sex Offenders:
We did not assess the prevalence of sex offenders working or residing
at child care facilities;
our 10 cases do provide examples of sex offenders who gained access to
such facilities as maintenance workers, spouses or friends of
providers, a cafeteria worker, and a carpenter. Seven of these cases
involve offenders who previously targeted children, and in at least 3
of the cases, the offenders used their access to children at the child
care facility to offend again. As discussed below, we identified
instances of relatives and acquaintances who knowingly hired offenders
to work at child care facilities and facilities that unknowingly hired
offenders because they did not perform preemployment criminal-history
checks. Our investigation also found instances where child care
facilities employing sex offenders operated without licenses or
received federal funds.
Relatives or Acquaintances Knowingly Provided Sex Offenders Access to
Child Care Facilities. In at least 7 of our 10 cases, sex offenders
were hired or allowed to reside at both licensed and unlicensed
facilities by relatives or acquaintances who were aware of the
offenders' previous offenses. As shown in the cases, the regulatory
consequences for allowing a sex offender to have access to a child
care facility differ widely, ranging from, for example, no action
being taken to suspension of a child care license to a misdemeanor
charge for providing child care services in a home where a sex
offender resides. Examples from our case studies include the following:
* Operators of a licensed child care facility in the District of
Columbia hired their son in April 2008 as an after-hours janitor even
though he had been convicted for attempting to sexually abuse a very
young girl. The terms of the offender's parole and District of
Columbia law prohibited him from being employed at a child care
facility. After interviewing the child care provider, we confirmed
that the offender was working at the facility in November 2010. The
offender's father told us that employing his son to work at the child
care facility was not a cause for concern, even though he was a
convicted sex offender; he also stated that his son's employment was
approved by his probation officer and that he only worked after the
school was closed. We referred the case to the Metropolitan Police
Department, Sex Offender Registry Unit, who told us that they could
not take action against the offender because he was no longer under
court supervision and the restrictions of his parole no longer applied.
We then referred the matter to the Office of the State Superintendent
of Education, the office responsible for licensing child care facilities
in the District of Columbia. In March 2011, the office required the
owners to certify that they had terminated their son's employment and
notify him that he was prohibited from visiting the child care facility,
in order to maintain their license. As of March 21, 2011, the office
was still investigating the matter.
* An Illinois woman allowed her husband to reside at her unlicensed
home-based child care facility even though he had prior convictions
for sexual assault and abuse. In Illinois, sex offenders are not
allowed to be present at any child care facility. Over a 6-year
period, the offender sexually molested one of the children under his
wife's care. He was sentenced to life in prison and is currently
incarcerated. Prosecutors told us that they could not gather enough
evidence to prosecute the wife.
* A Kentucky owner of a licensed child care facility hired a cafeteria
worker even though she knew that he had been convicted of sexual abuse
in the first degree, because she wanted to help him. Kentucky
prohibits child care facilities from hiring sex offenders for any
position involving direct contact with minors. A series of anonymous
tips led to an investigation of the child care facility, which
resulted in a suspension of her license and an order to cease
operations. She revoked her right to appeal the suspension.
* A woman in North Carolina allowed her husband and his son, both of
whom were convicted for taking indecent liberties with a minor, to
reside in a house where she was providing child care. North Carolina
prohibits sex offenders from being present at child care facilities.
In February 2010, the mother of two of the children who attended the
child care facility reported that one of the children had witnessed
the husband sexually abusing her sibling. The husband was convicted on
felony charges of being an offender in a home where child care is
provided and indecent liberties with a child and sentenced to 19 to 23
months in prison with 5 years probation. The offender's son was never
charged. Police arrested the offender's wife for the misdemeanor
offense of offering child care services in a home where a sex offender
resides; her trial was scheduled to begin in September 2011. We could not
obtain information regarding the present operation of the child care
facility.
Child Care Facilities Not Performing Preemployment Criminal-History
Checks. At least two cases show examples in which licensed child care
facilities unknowingly hired employees who were sex offenders because
they did not conduct required criminal-history checks. The documents
we reviewed and the officials we spoke with indicated that the child
care facilities did not perform these checks because of poor oversight
and an unclear understanding of background check requirements.
* In June 2007, an offender who was convicted for sexually abusing a
minor gained employment as a substitute custodian at three child care
facilities in New York City. The City of New York requires criminal-
history checks on employees of licensed child care facilities;
and according to the Director of the child care facility, employees
are not authorized to begin working until after the employer receives
the results of these checks. However, the offender was not scheduled
to have his fingerprints checked for more than 9 months after he began
working. He was subsequently terminated as a result of downsizing. The
organization only learned of the offender's criminal past through our
investigation. The Director of the facility also told us that it was
likely that the organization failed in its oversight role because he
was hired when the organization was in flux. The child care facility
is now owned and operated by a different organization.
* A South Carolina child care facility hired an offender in September
2009 who was convicted of committing sexual battery. The person was
hired to provide maintenance and repair services at six different
child care facilities. South Carolina requires licensed facilities to
perform fingerprint-based state and national criminal-history checks
on all employees. The owners said they did not perform a criminal-
history check on the offender in this case because he was a self-
employed contractor and not an employee of the child care facility. In
December 2009, the human resource director at the child care facility
reported the offender's employment to law enforcement and child
protective services. We could not obtain information regarding the
present operation of the child care facility.
Some Facilities Operated without Required Licenses. At least 3 of our
10 cases involve child care facilities that allegedly cared for more
children than legally allowed without a license or did not operate as
permitted by the state. States and localities are responsible for
regulating child care providers by establishing specific requirements
they must meet and enforcing those requirements. Many states set
thresholds at which regulation begins according to the number of
children served by different types of providers and exempt from
regulation those providers falling below these thresholds. For
example, in a given state, providers caring for seven or more children
in their home might be regulated, while providers caring for four
children in their home might be exempted from regulation.[Footnote 26]
Licensed providers are generally subject to standard oversight, which
includes background checks, inspections, technical assistance and
training, and the application of sanctions when providers are found to
be out of compliance. Unlicensed providers may be subject to less
intense scrutiny or none at all. However, the requirements for
licensing vary widely. If enforced, penalties for violating licensing
requirements also vary widely, ranging from a $5 administrative fine
to imprisonment for a term of years. Examples from our case studies
include the following:
* A Missouri child care facility providing care for 31 children
employed as a maintenance man a person convicted of attempted child
molestation. He had been working at the facility for approximately 2
years when he was discovered in January 2003. In Missouri, fingerprint-
based national and state criminal-history checks are required for all
employees of licensed child care facilities--those with 5 or more
children. However, Missouri exempts from regulation child care
facilities that are affiliated with a school system. The child care
facility received an exemption from state regulation after it claimed
to be a school; however, during the state's investigation, it found
no evidence to support this claim. The facility was eventually
condemned after state officials and police conducted investigations
into allegations of child abuse and found unsafe conditions.
Subsequently, the offender pled guilty to two misdemeanor counts of
child endangerment. The child care provider pled guilty to 31 counts
of felony child endangerment and received 3 years of probation. The
Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services told us that as of
November 2010 the child care facility was no longer in operation.
* Another Missouri offender convicted for having sexual intercourse
with a minor subsequently resided in the trailer where his girlfriend
provided child care services when he was arrested by police during a
domestic dispute. The offender pled guilty to assaulting his
girlfriend, receiving a 1-year suspended sentence with 2 years of
probation. An August 2004 report by the offender's probation officer
indicated that he was compliant with sex-offender registration
requirements; however, he continued to reside at the same home with
his girlfriend while he was on probation and she continued to provide
child care services. The Missouri Department of Health and Senior
Services told us that as of November 2010 the child care facility was
no longer in operation.
* An Arizona offender convicted of indecent exposure to a minor was
operating an unlicensed facility with his wife in October 2005. The
child care facility provided services for more than 15 children,
although Arizona required a license for any facility with 5 or more
children. Police discovered the offender operating the child care
facility after a parent alleged that he abused her child. The offender
fled the state, but was eventually apprehended. He subsequently pled
guilty to sexual exploitation of a minor and dangerous crimes against
children in the first degree and was sentenced to 13 years'
imprisonment. According to the prosecutor, his wife has not been
charged. We could not obtain information regarding the present
operation of the child care facility.
Several Child Care Providers Received Federal Funds. At least four of
the child care facilities--two licensed and two unlicensed--received
federal funds from HHS's Head Start program or its Child Care
Development Fund (CCDF). In all four cases, we attempted to determine
the amount of funds received during the time that a sex offender was
employed or resided at the child care facility, although we can not be
certain when offenders began living or working at some facilities
because the operators did not keep comprehensive records. The Head
Start program delivers comprehensive educational, social, health,
nutritional, and psychological services to low-income families and
their children who are below the age of compulsory school attendance.
These services include preschool education, family support, health
screenings, and dental care. The Office of Head Start makes grants
directly to approximately 1,600 local organizations, including
community-action agencies, school systems, tribal governments and
associations, and for-profit and nonprofit organizations.[Footnote 27]
Administered by HHS as a block grant to the states, CCDF subsidizes
child care for low-income children under age 13 whose parents work or
attend educational or job-training programs.[Footnote 28] In September
2010, we reported that criminals could obtain CCDF subsidies to
provide child care because at least five states did not conduct
criminal-history checks, verify SSNs, or compare provider information
to sex-offender registries.[Footnote 29] In our current investigation,
we notified the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) at HHS
of the four cases where sex offenders worked or resided at child care
facilities that received federal funds. Details regarding our four
cases follow.
In one case, owners of the licensed Washington, D.C., child care
facility that hired their son, an offender convicted for attempting to
sexually abuse a child, to work as a janitor, received at least $1
million in assistance from the Head Start program between April 2008
and December 2010. Head Start requires that grantees conduct a state
or national criminal-history check on prospective employees, depending
on state law. The District of Columbia requires both state and
national checks for all owners, volunteers, and employees of licensed
child care facilities with 6 or more children. ACF has informed us that this facility‘s Head Start contract has been terminated. In the three remaining cases, two in Missouri and one in New York, child care facilities received funds from CCDF. In New York, a licensed facility hired a custodian in 2007 who was convicted for sexually abusing a minor and the facility received nearly $750,000 in financial assistance from CCDF between July 2007 and June 2008. In one Missouri case, a man convicted for attempted child molestation worked at a child care facility that received nearly $250,000 in federal assistance from the CCDF between 2001 and 2003. In the other, an offender convicted for sexually assaulting a minor resided in his girlfriend's unlicensed, home-based day care, which received more than $4,200 in federal assistance from CCDF between 2001 and 2002. Although Missouri is 1 of 11 states that requires facilities that receive state or federal funds to perform criminal-history checks,[Footnote 30] there are no federal requirements for CCDF grantees to conduct these checks.
Table 2 provides a summary of the 10 cases we examined.
Table 2: Examples of Sex Offenders at Child-Care Facilities:
Case: 1;
Location, licensing status of child care facility and number of
children, and offender occupation:
* Washington, D.C;
* Licensed child care facility, 160 children;
* Janitor;
Case details:
* In March 2000, the offender was convicted for attempting to sexually
abuse an 8-year-old child;
* In April 2008, the offender's parents hired him to work as an after-
hours janitor in their licensed child care facility. In December 2010,
the offender's father told us that the offender's employment at the
facility was approved by his probation officer. But according to the
Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of
Columbia, the offender was never authorized to work at or visit his
parents' child care facility;
* Between April 2008 and December 2010, this child care facility has
received at least $1 million dollars in assistance from the Head Start
program. ACF has informed us that this facility‘s Head Start contract has been terminated;
* We referred the case to the D.C. office responsible for licensing
child care facilities, which required the owners to certify that they
had terminated the employment of their son and notified him that he
was prohibited from being at the facility, in order to maintain their
license. In March 2011, the child care facility certified that the
offender's employment was terminated and the facility remained open.
Case: 2;
Location, licensing status of child care facility and number of
children, and offender occupation:
* New York;
* Three licensed child care facilities operated by the same board of
volunteers, number of children unknown;
* Custodian;
Case details:
* In 1997, this offender was convicted for sexually abusing a minor.
He was sentenced to a year in prison and required to register as a sex
offender for life;
* The offender was hired in June 2007. Although the state of New York
requires criminal-history checks on employees of licensed child care
facilities, the offender's fingerprints were not scheduled to be
checked until more than 9 months after he began working;
* The offender's employment was subsequently terminated in March 2008
as a result of downsizing. The organization only learned of his
criminal past through our investigation;
* During the approximate time the offender was employed, these
facilities received nearly $750,000 in financial assistance from
CCDF[A].
Case: 3;
Location, licensing status of child care facility and number of
children, and offender occupation:
* Missouri;
* Unlicensed child care facility, 31 children;
* Maintenance worker;
Case details:
* In 1996, this offender was convicted of attempted child molestation;
* In January 2003, state officials responded to a claim of abuse at
two unlicensed child care facilities operated by the same owner and
discovered the offender;
* The child care facility was exempt from state inspections because it
claimed to be a school; however, during the state's investigation,
it found no evidence to support this claim. It also found that the
facility's owner did not have employment records or completed
criminal-history checks on the offender or any of its employees;
* In March 2004, the offender pled guilty to two misdemeanor counts of
child endangerment, because he worked at a child care facility that
did not provide sanitary and safe conditions for the children. The
child care facility owner pled guilty to 31 counts of felony child
endangerment, received 3 years of probation, and was forbidden from
working in a child care setting for 6 months;
* Between 2001 and 2003, the child care facility received almost
$250,000 in federal assistance from the CCDF.[B];
* In Missouri, individuals receiving federal or state funds for child
care are required to submit to criminal-history checks. As of November
2010, the child care facility was no longer in operation.
Case: 4;
Location, licensing status of child care facility and number of
children, and offender occupation:
* Arizona;
* Unlicensed home-based child care facility, more than 15 children;
* Operator and resident;
Case details:
* In 1988, the offender was convicted in Arizona of indecent exposure
to a minor under the age of 15;
* In October 2005, police discovered the offender operating a child
care facility with his wife after a parent alleged that the offender
sexually abused her child;
* The offender subsequently pled guilty to sexual exploitation of a
minor and dangerous crimes against children. According to the
prosecutor, the wife was not charged. We could not obtain information
regarding the present operation of the child care facility.
Case: 5;
Location, licensing status of child care facility and number of
children, and offender occupation:
* South Carolina;
* Six licensed child care facilities operated by the same owners, 650
children;
* Maintenance worker;
Case details:
* In 2004, the offender was sentenced for committing sexual battery
against a woman in South Carolina in 1999;
* The offender began work in September 2009. South Carolina law
requires licensed facilities to perform fingerprint-based state and
national criminal-history checks on all employees, but not independent
contractors. However, state regulations prohibit child care facilities
from engaging the services of or allowing access during normal
operating hours to anyone convicted of a violent offense or required
to register as a sex offender;
* The owners of the child care facility stated that they did not
perform criminal-history checks on the offender before hiring him
because he was a self-employed contractor and not an employee of the
child care facility. In December 2009, the human resource director at
the child care facility reported the offender's employment to law
enforcement and child protective services. We could not obtain
information regarding the present operation of the child care facility.
Case: 6;
Location, licensing status of child care facility and number of
children, and offender occupation:
* Kentucky;
* Licensed child care facility, maximum of 122 children;
* Cook;
Case details:
* In 1995, this offender was convicted of sexual abuse in the first
degree;
* In February 2008, shortly after the offender began working at the
child care facility, a series of anonymous tips about safety and
health led to an investigation by multiple state agencies responsible
for regulating child care facilities;
* When investigators asked about the offender's employment, the owner
acknowledged that she knew of his past and wanted to help him; she
also stated that she was not aware that his offense would prevent
him from working at the facility;
* In addition to the hiring of a sex offender, the investigation
uncovered numerous regulatory violations, including staff working with
children without the required background checks and a failure to
properly report allegations of abuse and neglect of children. As a
result, the owner's license was suspended and she was directed to
cease operation of the facility;
* In February 2008, she revoked her right to appeal the suspension of
the license and closed the child care facility.
Case: 7;
Location, licensing status of child care facility and number of
children, and offender occupation:
* Missouri;
* Unlicensed, home-based child care facility, at least four children;
* Boyfriend of child care operator and resident;
Case details:
* In 1995, this offender was convicted for having sex with a minor;
* In May 2001, the Missouri Department of Health received an anonymous
tip that the offender's girlfriend was caring for too many children in
her home without a license;
* Missouri requires a license for five or more children. However, the
department concluded these allegations were unsubstantiated after the
child care owner sent documents listing the names of children under
her care. The department did not investigate the offender's presence
at the child care facility;
* In October 2002, the police discovered the offender residing in the
home where his girlfriend provided child care services, when they
arrested him for domestic violence;
* The offender pled guilty in February 2003 for assaulting his
girlfriend, receiving a 1 year suspended sentence and 2 years of
probation;
* An August 2004 report by the offender's probation officer indicates
that while he remained compliant with sex-offender registration
requirements and had no further violations, he still resided with his
girlfriend while she continued to operate the child care. The
probation officer told us that she stopped supervising the sex
offender in February 2005. The Missouri Department of Health and
Senior Services told us that as of November 2010 the child care
facility was not in operation;
* While the offender resided in the home, the child care provider
received more than $4,200 in federal assistance from CCDF between
November 2001 and November 2002. In Missouri, individuals receiving
federal or state funds for child care and residents of their homes are
supposed to submit to criminal-history checks. However, the provider
did not report that the offender lived in her residential child care
facility.
Case: 8;
Location, licensing status of child care facility and number of
children, and offender occupation:
* Illinois;
* Unlicensed home-based child care facility, between two and six
children;
* Spouse of child care operator and resident;
Case details:
* The offender had convictions for sexually assaulting and abusing
children in 1987 and 1995;
* Public records indicate that the offender began living in the child
care facility as early as December 1999. Over a 6-year period, the
offender sexually molested one of the children under his wife's care;
* A representative from the office of the prosecutor involved in the
case told us that there were between two and six children present at
the facility. Currently in Illinois, homes that provide care for more
than 1 child are required to obtain a license. According to the
prosecutor's office, the wife never registered or obtained a license
for the child care because of her husband's prior convictions for
sexual offenses;
* In 2009, the offender was sentenced to life in prison for predatory
criminal sexual assault and is currently incarcerated. Although the
wife knew about her husband's prior convictions and the abuse he
committed against the victim, prosecutors told us that it wasn't clear
whether they would have enough evidence to prosecute her successfully.
We could not obtain information regarding the present operation of the
child care facility.
Case: 9;
Location, licensing status of child care facility and number of
children, and offender occupation:
* North Carolina;
* Unlicensed home-based child care, at least three children;
* Spouse of child care operator and resident;
Case details:
* In 1999, an offender was convicted of taking indecent liberties with
a child. His son was also convicted for the same crime with the same
victim;
* In North Carolina, sex offenders may not be present at child care
facilities, and any facility servicing three or more children requires
a license. In 2010, both father and son were living in the house where
the father's wife was providing child care to children, including two
girls, ages five and six and another child;
* In February 2010, the mother of the two children reported to police
that the 6-year had witnessed the elder offender fondle the 5-year-
old. In March 2011, the offender was convicted on felony charges of
being an offender in a home where child care was provided and indecent
liberties with a child and sentenced to 19 to 23 months in prison with
5 years probation. The offender's son was never charged with a crime
for being present at the day care;
* In early March 2010, police also arrested the offender's wife for
the misdemeanor offense of offering child care services in the home
where a sex offender resides. Her trial is scheduled for September
2011. We could not obtain information regarding the present operation
of the child care facility.
Case: 10;
Location, licensing status of child care facility and number of
children, and offender occupation:
* Arkansas;
* Licensed day care, unknown number of children;
* Carpentry work;
Case details:
* This offender had convictions for rape, attempted murder, and battery;
* In Arkansas, registered sex offenders may not operate or serve as a
contractor or employee of a child care facility;
* In March 2010, police responded to a tip that the offender was doing
carpentry work in a child care facility owned by his niece. He told
the police that he was not aware that he could not be employed at the
facility and claimed that he only worked on nights and weekends when
children were not present. Statements from other employees alleged
that he was present at the facility during its hours of operation and
on occasions handed out snacks to children;
* He was arrested a week after police responded to the tip, and served
nearly 6 months in jail before he received a suspended sentence of 36
months for failure to comply with sex-offender registry requirements;
* The niece was arrested on charges of endangering the welfare of a
minor. However, county officials told us they could not prove that the
offender was present during the facility's hours of operation and
dropped the charge. The niece eventually pled to a misdemeanor charge
of obstructing governmental operations. We do not know if the facility
is still in operation; however, the niece registered another
organization with a different name at the same address as the child
care facility.
Source: State and local agencies, GAO.
Note: The data are from records including police documents, court
documents, and interviews.
[A] The figure provided is shown to approximate the amount of funds
received by the child care facility during the period of time that the
offender was employed. The offender was employed by the facility
between June 2007 and March 2008, however, the fiscal year for the New
York City Administration for Children's Services, the agency
responsible for funding the child care facility, begins in July and
ends in June. Thus, the funding period for the facility includes about
3 months in which the offender was no longer employed.
[B] The offender was employed at the facility during calendar years
2001 to 2003;
however, because we do not know his exact dates of hire, the funding
period may represent some time in which the offender was not employed.
[End of table]
As we agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the
contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution of it
until 30 days from the date of this report. At that time, we will send
copies of this report to appropriate congressional committees, the
Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Education,
and the Department of Justice. This report will also be available at
no charge on GAO's Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. If you
or your staff have any questions about this report or need additional
information, please contact me at (202) 512-6722 or hillmanr@gao.gov.
Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public
Affairs can be found on the last page of this report.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
Richard Hillman:
Managing Director:
Forensic Audits and Investigative Service:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Summary of State Laws Related to the Employment of Sex
Offenders at Child Care Facilities:
State: Alabama;
Prohibitions on sex offenders working in or being present in child
care facilities: Convicted sex offenders may not be employed within
2,000 feet of a child care facility;
Criminal-history check requirements for child care facilities:
Fingerprint-based national and state criminal-history checks are
required of all employment applicants, employees, and volunteers of
licensed child care facilities (1 or more children);
Civil and criminal penalties for violations of licensing requirements:
Violation of the licensing requirements, including failing to report
criminal-history information, is a misdemeanor.
State: Alaska;
Prohibitions on sex offenders working in or being present in child
care facilities: Convicted sex offenders with child victims may not
operate a licensed child care facility;
Criminal-history check requirements for child care facilities:
Fingerprint-based national and state criminal-history checks are
required of all owners, employees, contractors, unsupervised
volunteers, and other persons present on the premises of licensed
child care facilities (5 or more children);
Civil and criminal penalties for violations of licensing requirements:
Intentional or criminally negligent violation of the licensing
requirements related to health or safety is a misdemeanor.
State: Arizona;
Prohibitions on sex offenders working in or being present in child
care facilities: Registered sex offenders may not volunteer or be
employed at a licensed child care center;
Criminal-history check requirements for child care facilities:
Fingerprint-based national and state criminal-history checks are
required of all employees and volunteers of licensed child care
facilities (5 or more children);
Civil and criminal penalties for violations of licensing requirements:
Violation of the licensing requirements is a misdemeanor and may also
result in civil penalties of up to $100 per violation per day.
State: Arkansas;
Prohibitions on sex offenders working in or being present in child
care facilities: Registered sex offenders may not operate or serve as
a contractor or employee of a child care center;
Criminal-history check requirements for child care facilities: State
fingerprint-based criminal-history checks are required of all
operators, employees, contractors, and employment applicants of
licensed child care facilities (6 or more children or one that accepts
state or federal funds). National checks are required if the
individual has not been a state resident during the last 5 years.
Periodic checks are required every 5 years;
Civil and criminal penalties for violations of licensing requirements:
Violation of the licensing requirements, including failure to perform
criminal-history checks, may result in civil penalties of up to $100
per violation per day.
State: California;
Prohibitions on sex offenders working in or being present in child
care facilities: Registered sex offenders with child victims may not
be an employer, employee, contractor, or volunteer that involves
working with children;
Criminal-history check requirements for child care facilities:
Fingerprint-based national and state criminal-history checks are
required of all operators, employees, volunteers, and adult residents
of child care facilities. Abuse-registry checks are also required of
all operators;
Civil and criminal penalties for violations of licensing requirements:
Willful or repeated violation of the licensing requirements is a
misdemeanor. Failure to perform criminal-history checks may result in
civil penalties of up to $500 (or $3,000 for repeated offenses).
State: Colorado;
Prohibitions on sex offenders working in or being present in child
care facilities: Convicted sex offenders may not operate or be
employed or reside at a licensed child care facility;
Criminal-history check requirements for child care facilities: Abuse-
registry and fingerprint-based state criminal-history checks are
required of all owners, employees, and other adult residents of
licensed child care facilities (5 or more children) and those
accepting state funds. National checks are required if the individual
has not been a state resident during the last 2 years;
Civil and criminal penalties for violations of licensing requirements:
Violation of the licensing requirements is a misdemeanor and may also
result in civil penalties of up to $100 per day.
State: Connecticut;
Prohibitions on sex offenders working in or being present in child
care facilities: None located;
Criminal-history check requirements for child care facilities: Abuse-
registry and national and state criminal-history checks are required
of all prospective employees (who will care for children) of licensed
day care centers (13 or more children), group day care homes (7 to 12
children cared for in a residence), and family day care homes (1 to 6
children cared for in a residence);
Civil and criminal penalties for violations of licensing requirements:
Violation of the licensing requirements, including failure to report
criminal-history information, may result in civil penalties of up to
$100 per day. Failure to report criminal convictions to a day care
center by an employee or prospective employee is a misdemeanor.
State: Delaware;
Prohibitions on sex offenders working in or being present in child
care facilities: Convicted sex offenders with child victims are
prohibited from being employed in a position having direct access to
children;
Criminal-history check requirements for child care facilities:
National and state criminal-history checks are required of all
prospective employees (with regular, direct access to children) of
licensed child care centers (1 or more children) and child care
facilities receiving federal funds;
Civil and criminal penalties for violations of licensing requirements:
Failure by a child care center to perform a criminal-history check of
an employee is a misdemeanor. Failure by a prospective employee to
report accurate sex-offense history is a felony.
State: District of Columbia;
Prohibitions on sex offenders working in or being present in child
care facilities: Convicted sex offenders may not be employed at a
licensed day care center;
Criminal-history check requirements for child care facilities: Abuse-
registry and fingerprint-based national and state criminal-history
checks are required of all owners, volunteers, and employees of
licensed child care centers (6 or more children);
Civil and criminal penalties for violations of licensing requirements:
Failure by a prospective employee or volunteer to report criminal-
history information is punishable by fines of up to $1,000 or
imprisonment of up to 180 days, or both.
State: Florida;
Prohibitions on sex offenders working in or being present in child
care facilities: Sex offenders on supervised release whose victims
were minors may not work or volunteer at any child care facility;
Criminal-history check requirements for child care facilities:
Fingerprint-based national and state criminal-history checks are
required of all prospective employees of licensed child care centers
(6 or more children) or family day care homes (children from more than
one family cared for in a residence);
Civil and criminal penalties for violations of licensing requirements:
Violation of the licensing requirements may result in fines of up to
$100 per violation per day ($500 for violations that could cause
serious harm). Misrepresentation associated with an employment or
licensing application is a misdemeanor.
State: Georgia;
Prohibitions on sex offenders working in or being present in child
care facilities: Registered sex offenders may not be employed by or
reside at any child care facility;
Criminal-history check requirements for child care facilities:
Fingerprint-based national and state criminal-history checks are
required of all owners and employees (and adult residents present when
children are present) of licensed day care centers (19 or more
children), group day care homes (7-18 children), or family day care
homes (3-6 children cared for in a residence);
Civil and criminal penalties for violations of licensing requirements:
Violation of the licensing requirements is a misdemeanor and may also
result in civil penalties of up to $500 per day.
State: Hawaii;
Prohibitions on sex offenders working in or being present in child
care facilities: None located;
Criminal-history check requirements for child care facilities:
Fingerprint-based national and state criminal-history and abuse
registry checks are required of all operators and employees of
licensed child care facilities (generally 3 or more children);
Civil and criminal penalties for violations of licensing requirements:
Violation of the licensing requirements may result in civil penalties
of up to $1,000 for the first violation and up to $3,000 for
subsequent violations.
State: Idaho;
Prohibitions on sex offenders working in or being present in child
care facilities: Registered sex offenders may not be employed by or be
present at any day care center;
Criminal-history check requirements for child care facilities:
National and state criminal-history checks are required of all
operators, employees, and other persons with unsupervised direct
contact with children at child care facilities with 4 or more children;
Civil and criminal penalties for violations of licensing requirements:
Failure to perform the criminal-history checks is a misdemeanor.
State: Illinois;
Prohibitions on sex offenders working in or being present in child
care facilities: Registered sex offenders may not operate, be employed
by, volunteer, or be present at any day care center;
Criminal-history check requirements for child care facilities:
Fingerprint-based national and state criminal-history checks are
required of all owners and employees of licensed child care facilities
(1 or more children);
Civil and criminal penalties for violations of licensing requirements:
Violation of the licensing requirements is a misdemeanor.
State: Indiana;
Prohibitions on sex offenders working in or being present in child
care facilities: Convicted sex offenders may not be employed or
volunteer at child care facilities;
Criminal-history check requirements for child care facilities:
National and state criminal-history checks are required of all
employees, volunteers, and adult residents of licensed child care
facilities (1 or more children);
Civil and criminal penalties for violations of licensing requirements:
Violation of the licensing requirements is a misdemeanor and may also
result in civil penalties of up to $1,000.
State: Iowa;
Prohibitions on sex offenders working in or being present in child
care facilities: Registered sex offenders whose victims were minors
may not be employed by, volunteer at, or serve as a contractor for a
child care facility;
Criminal-history check requirements for child care facilities:
Fingerprint-based national and state criminal-history and abuse-
registry checks are required of all operators and employees (with
direct responsibility or access to children) and residents of licensed
child care facilities (7 or more children) and individuals who accept
public funds for child care;
Civil and criminal penalties for violations of licensing requirements:
Failure to perform criminal-history checks is a misdemeanor.
State: Kansas;
Prohibitions on sex offenders working in or being present in child
care facilities: Convicted violent or sexual offenders may not reside,
work, or volunteer at a child care facility;
Criminal-history check requirements for child care facilities:
Fingerprint-based national and state criminal-history checks are
required of all employees, volunteers, and residents of licensed child
care facilities (1 or more children);
Civil and criminal penalties for violations of licensing requirements:
Violation of the licensing requirements that significantly and
adversely affect the health or safety of children may result in civil
penalties of up to $500 per day.
State: Kentucky;
Prohibitions on sex offenders working in or being present in child
care facilities: Registered sex offenders may not enter a licensed
child care facility without advance permission of the director. Child
care centers may not hire sex offenders for any position involving
direct contact with a minor;
Criminal-history check requirements for child care facilities:
Criminal-history checks are required of all employees of licensed
child care facilities (7 or more children) or family child care homes
(4 to 6 children);
Civil and criminal penalties for violations of licensing requirements:
Violation of the licensing requirements may result in fines of up to
$500. Violations involving allowing violent and sexual offenders to
have contact with children may result in fines between $500 and $1,000.
State: Louisiana;
Prohibitions on sex offenders working in or being present in child
care facilities: Persons convicted of sexual offenses against victims
under 13 may not be present within 1,000 feet of a day care center
without permission. Registered sex offenders may not operate, own, or
participate in the governance of a child care facility;
Criminal-history check requirements for child care facilities:
Licensed child care facilities (7 or more children) must arrange to
have criminal background checks on any employees given supervisory or
disciplinary authority over children. Abuse-registry checks are
required of all owners, operators, employees, and volunteers of
licensed child care facilities;
Civil and criminal penalties for violations of licensing requirements:
Failure by an owner, operator, employee, or volunteer to report abuse
history is a misdemeanor.
State: Maine;
Prohibitions on sex offenders working in or being present in child
care facilities: Convicted sex offenders whose victims were under 14
may not initiate contact with a child under 14 at a child care
facility;
Criminal-history check requirements for child care facilities: State
criminal-history and child-protection checks are required of all
employees, owners, and volunteers of licensed child care centers (3 or
more children), as well as persons who provide for care for children
in their home and accept state or federal funds;
Civil and criminal penalties for violations of licensing requirements:
Violation of children's rights, including abuse, may result in
financial penalties of up to $50 per incident. Providing false
information in the licensure process may result in financial penalties
of up to $500 per incident.
State: Maryland;
Prohibitions on sex offenders working in or being present in child
care facilities: Registered sex offenders may not enter child care
facilities;
Criminal-history check requirements for child care facilities:
National and state criminal-history checks are required of all
employees, adult residents, and owners of licensed child care centers
and registered child care homes;
Civil and criminal penalties for violations of licensing requirements:
Failure to perform criminal-history checks or to disclose criminal-
history information is a misdemeanor. Violation of the licensing
requirements is a misdemeanor.
State: Massachusetts;
Prohibitions on sex offenders working in or being present in child
care facilities: The commissioner of probation must establish
exclusion zones for persons on probation for sexually violent offenses
or offenses against children to minimize contact with children;
Criminal-history check requirements for child care facilities:
Criminal-history checks are required of all persons with the potential
for unsupervised contact with children (including adult residents) in
licensed child care facilities (the nonoccasional care of children);
Civil and criminal penalties for violations of licensing requirements:
Violation of the licensing requirements may result in criminal
sanctions of up to a $5,000 fine or 2-½ years imprisonment, as well as
civil fines up to $250 per violation.
State: Michigan;
Prohibitions on sex offenders working in or being present in child
care facilities: None located;
Criminal-history check requirements for child care facilities: State
criminal-history checks are required of all employees and contractors
of licensed child care organizations (1 or more children). Fingerprint-
based national and state criminal-history checks are required of all
owners and operators of licensed facilities;
Civil and criminal penalties for violations of licensing requirements:
Violation of the licensing requirements is a misdemeanor.
State: Minnesota;
Prohibitions on sex offenders working in or being present in child
care facilities: Sexual and violent offenders may not have direct
contact with children at a child care facility;
Criminal-history check requirements for child care facilities: Abuse
registry and state criminal-history checks are required of all
operators, adult residents, and current and prospective employees,
volunteers and contractors with direct contact with children of
licensed child care facilities (providing care to the children of more
than one family). National checks are required if there is reasonable
cause to do so;
Civil and criminal penalties for violations of licensing requirements:
Violation of the licensing requirements, including failure to perform
criminal-history checks, may result in fines of up to $200 per
violation.
State: Mississippi;
Prohibitions on sex offenders working in or being present in child
care facilities: Registered sex offenders may not own, operate, work,
or volunteer at a child care facility;
Criminal-history check requirements for child care facilities: Abuse
registry and fingerprint-based national and state criminal-history
checks are required of all operators and adult residents of licensed
child care facilities (6 or more children);
Civil and criminal penalties for violations of licensing requirements:
Failure to perform criminal-history checks may result in a penalty of
up to $10,000 per violation. Operation of a child care facility by a
sex offender is a felony. Employment of a sex offender by a child care
facility is a misdemeanor.
State: Missouri;
Prohibitions on sex offenders working in or being present in child
care facilities: None located;
Criminal-history check requirements for child care facilities:
Fingerprint-based national and state criminal-history and abuse-
registry checks are required of all employees of licensed child care
facilities (5 or more children). Individuals receiving federal or
state funds for child care and any other residents of their homes must
submit to criminal-history checks;
Civil and criminal penalties for violations of licensing requirements:
Violation of the licensing requirements may result in fines of up to
$200. Subsequent violations are misdemeanors.
State: Montana;
Prohibitions on sex offenders working in or being present in child
care facilities: A mandatory condition of probation/parole for sexual
offenders is employment restrictions to protect potential future
victims of the offender;
Criminal-history check requirements for child care facilities: State
criminal-history and child-protection checks are required of all
owners, employees, and adult residents of licensed day care facilities
(3 or more children). National fingerprint-based checks are required
if the individual lived outside of the state during the last 5 years;
Civil and criminal penalties for violations of licensing requirements:
Violation of the licensing requirements may result in license
revocation; continued operation after revocation is a misdemeanor.
State: Nebraska;
Prohibitions on sex offenders working in or being present in child
care facilities: None located;
Criminal-history check requirements for child care facilities: The
Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services is authorized to
conduct national and state criminal-history checks of the owners and
employees of licensed child care facilities (4 or more children);
Civil and criminal penalties for violations of licensing requirements:
Violation of the licensing requirements may result in civil penalties
of up to $5 per child authorized to be enrolled per day.
State: Nevada;
Prohibitions on sex offenders working in or being present in child
care facilities: A mandatory condition of probation/parole for sexual
offenders is a prohibition of coming within 500 feet of a child care
facility;
Criminal-history check requirements for child care facilities:
Fingerprint-based national and state criminal-history checks are
required of all owners, employees, and adult residents of licensed
child care facilities (5 or more children);
Civil and criminal penalties for violations of licensing requirements:
Violation of the licensing requirements may result in administrative
fines of up to $100 per violation.
State: New Hampshire;
Prohibitions on sex offenders working in or being present in child
care facilities: None located;
Criminal-history check requirements for child care facilities: Abuse-
registry and fingerprint-based national and state criminal-history
checks are required of all employees with regular contact with
children and adult residents of licensed and registered child day care
centers (4 or more children) and those that receive state funds;
Civil and criminal penalties for violations of licensing requirements:
Violation of the licensing requirements is a misdemeanor and may also
result in administrative fines of up to $2,000 per violation.
State: New Jersey;
Prohibitions on sex offenders working in or being present in child
care facilities: Felons with violent, sexual, or child-victim
convictions are prohibited from employment at a licensed child care
center;
Criminal-history check requirements for child care facilities:
National and state criminal-history checks are required of all owners,
volunteers, contractors, and employees of licensed child care centers
(6 or more children). Abuse-registry checks are required of any day
care provider and adult residents of their household accepting state
subsidies;
Civil and criminal penalties for violations of licensing requirements:
Violation of the licensing requirements may result in criminal
penalties, including up to 18 months imprisonment.
State: New Mexico;
Prohibitions on sex offenders working in or being present in child
care facilities: None located;
Criminal-history check requirements for child care facilities:
Fingerprint-based national and state criminal-history checks are
required of all operators, employees, and staff of child care
facilities that provide care for children for 20 hours or more per
week;
Civil and criminal penalties for violations of licensing requirements:
Violation of the licensing requirements may result in civil penalties
of up to $5,000 per day.
State: New York;
Prohibitions on sex offenders working in or being present in child
care facilities: A mandatory condition of parole for sexual offenders
whose victims were minors is a prohibition on entering any facility
used for the care or treatment of children. Sex offenders are
prohibited from operating or working or volunteering at a day care
center unless the Office of Children & Family Services determines
there is no risk to the health, safety, or welfare of the children;
Criminal-history check requirements for child care facilities:
Fingerprint-based national and state criminal-history checks are
required of all operators, employees, and volunteers of all child care
facilities (providing care for children for more than 3 hours per day);
Civil and criminal penalties for violations of licensing requirements:
Willful violation of the licensing requirements is a misdemeanor.
State: North Carolina;
Prohibitions on sex offenders working in or being present in child
care facilities: Registered sex offenders may not be present at child
care facilities or work or volunteer at any position involving the
supervision, care, or instruction of minors;
Criminal-history check requirements for child care facilities:
Fingerprint-based national and state criminal-history checks are
required of all operators and employees of licensed child care
facilities (3 or more children) and all providers who accept federal
or state subsidies;
Civil and criminal penalties for violations of licensing requirements:
Violation of the licensing requirements is a misdemeanor and may also
result in civil penalties of up to $1,000 per violation per day.
Willful or repeated violations are a felony.
State: North Dakota;
Prohibitions on sex offenders working in or being present in child
care facilities: Registered sex offenders may not provide child care
services;
Criminal-history check requirements for child care facilities: Abuse-
registry and fingerprint-based national and state criminal-history
checks are required of all operators, residents, and employees of
licensed child care facilities (more than 4 infants or 5 children);
Civil and criminal penalties for violations of licensing requirements:
Violation of the licensing requirements, including employment of a sex
offender, is a misdemeanor and may also result in fiscal sanctions of
$5 per violation per day.
State: Ohio;
Prohibitions on sex offenders working in or being present in child
care facilities: None located;
Criminal-history check requirements for child care facilities:
Fingerprint-based national and state criminal-history checks are
required of all owners, operators, and employees (with responsibility
for the care, custody, or control of children) of licensed child care
facilities (7 or more children). Periodic checks are required every 4
years;
Civil and criminal penalties for violations of licensing requirements:
Failure to disclose criminal-history information is a misdemeanor.
State: Oklahoma;
Prohibitions on sex offenders working in or being present in child
care facilities: Registered sex offenders may not work in businesses
providing services to children or loiter within 500 feet of a licensed
child care facility;
Criminal-history check requirements for child care facilities:
Criminal-history checks are required of all operators, employees, and
adult residents and of licensed child care facilities (providing care
for more than 15 hours per week);
Civil and criminal penalties for violations of licensing requirements:
Violation of the licensing requirements or failure to perform criminal-
history checks is a misdemeanor. Employment of a sex offender in a
child care facility may result in an administrative penalty up to
$10,000.
State: Oregon;
Prohibitions on sex offenders working in or being present in child
care facilities: Predatory and violent sex offenders may not be on the
premises of a child care facility;
Criminal-history check requirements for child care facilities:
National and state criminal-history and abuse-registry checks are
required of all operators and employees of child care facilities with
4 or more children. Periodic checks are required every 2 years;
Civil and criminal penalties for violations of licensing requirements:
Violation of the licensing requirements may result in civil penalties
of up to $100 per violation or up to $500 for subsequent violations.
State: Pennsylvania;
Prohibitions on sex offenders working in or being present in child
care facilities: Violent and sexual felons are prohibited from working
at a licensed child care facility;
Criminal-history check requirements for child care facilities: Abuse-
registry and fingerprint-based national and state criminal-history
checks are required of all employees (with direct contact with
children) of licensed child care facilities (7 or more children) and
of all employees and adult residents of registered family day care
homes (4 or more children);
Civil and criminal penalties for violations of licensing requirements:
Violation of the criminal-history check requirements may result in
civil penalties up to $2,500.
State: Rhode Island;
Prohibitions on sex offenders working in or being present in child
care facilities: None located;
Criminal-history check requirements for child care facilities:
Fingerprint-based national and state criminal-history checks are
required of all operators and employees of licensed child care
facilities (1 or more children) and registered family day care homes
(4 or more children cared for in a residence);
Civil and criminal penalties for violations of licensing requirements:
Violation of the licensing requirements may result in criminal
penalties of up to $500 fine or 6 months imprisonment, or both ($1,000
or 1 year imprisonment, or both, for subsequent offenses).
State: South Carolina;
Prohibitions on sex offenders working in or being present in child
care facilities: Registered sex offenders may not work at a child care
center;
Criminal-history check requirements for child care facilities:
Fingerprint-based national and state criminal-history checks are
required of all operators and employees of licensed child care
facilities (13 or more children) or licensed group child care homes (7
to 12 children cared for in a residence) and of operators and adult
residents of family child care homes (no more than 6 children cared
for in a residence);
Civil and criminal penalties for violations of licensing requirements:
Violation of the licensing requirements is a misdemeanor.
State: South Dakota;
Prohibitions on sex offenders working in or being present in child
care facilities: Registered sex offenders may not reside or be
employed at any child care facility or day care home;
Criminal-history check requirements for child care facilities: Abuse-
registry and fingerprint-based national and state criminal-history
checks are required of all operators, administrators, adult residents,
and employees or volunteers who provide care or supervision to
children in licensed child care facilities (13 or more children);
Civil and criminal penalties for violations of licensing requirements:
Hiring a sex offender or recent felon or employment by a sex offender
or recent felon in a child care facility is a misdemeanor.
State: Tennessee;
Prohibitions on sex offenders working in or being present in child
care facilities: Registered sex offenders whose victims were minors
may not be employed within 1,000feet of any licensed child care
facility;
Criminal-history check requirements for child care facilities:
Fingerprint-based national and state criminal-history checks are
required of all employees and volunteers (who work more than 20 hours
per month) of all child care facilities;
Civil and criminal penalties for violations of licensing requirements:
Misrepresentation in the licensure process, including in regards to
the eligibility of employees to work in a child care facility, is a
misdemeanor.
State: Texas;
Prohibitions on sex offenders working in or being present in child
care facilities: A mandatory condition of parole for sexual offenders
whose victims were minors is a prohibition on entering a day care
facility;
Criminal-history check requirements for child care facilities:
Fingerprint-based national and state criminal-history checks are
required of all operators, owners, employees, and adult residents of
licensed child care facilities (more than 1 child);
Civil and criminal penalties for violations of licensing requirements:
Failure to perform criminal background checks or to preclude an
individual with a criminal history from employment or residence at a
child care facility is a misdemeanor.
State: Utah;
Prohibitions on sex offenders working in or being present in child
care facilities: Registered sex offenders may not enter the premises
of a licensed day care facility;
Criminal-history check requirements for child care facilities:
Fingerprint-based national and state criminal-history checks are
required of all operators, directors, employees, volunteers, and adult
residents of licensed child care facilities and those accepting public
funds;
Civil and criminal penalties for violations of licensing requirements:
Violation of the licensing requirements is a misdemeanor and may also
result in civil penalties of up to $1,000 per day if the violation is
likely to lead to the harm of a child or $5,000 if actual harm to a
child occurs.
State: Vermont;
Prohibitions on sex offenders working in or being present in child
care facilities: None located;
Criminal-history check requirements for child care facilities: Abuse-
registry and criminal-history checks are required of all employees of
licensed child care facilities (3 or more families) and any facility
that accepts public subsidies;
Civil and criminal penalties for violations of licensing requirements:
Violation of the licensing requirements may result in license
revocation; continued operation after revocation may result in civil
penalties of up to $100 per violation.
State: Virginia;
Prohibitions on sex offenders working in or being present in child
care facilities: Sexual or violent offenders may not be employed or
volunteer at a day care facility. Registered sex offenders may not
operate a family day care home;
Criminal-history check requirements for child care facilities: Abuse-
registry and fingerprint-based state criminal-history checks are
required of all operators, employees, adult residents, and volunteers
of licensed child care facilities (1 or more children cared for in a
residence; or 2 or more children cared for elsewhere) and of any
facility that receives state funds;
Civil and criminal penalties for violations of licensing requirements:
Employment of a sexual offender or child abuser is a misdemeanor.
Misrepresentation in the licensure process is a misdemeanor. Violation
of the licensing requirements may result in civil penalties of up to
$500 if the health and safety of children are at risk.
State: Washington;
Prohibitions on sex offenders working in or being present in child
care facilities: A mandatory condition of supervised release for
sexual offenders whose victims were minors is a prohibition on serving
in a paid or volunteer capacity in a position involving control or
supervision of children;
Criminal-history check requirements for child care facilities:
Fingerprint-based national and state criminal-history checks are
required of all operators and employees who have not lived in the
state for the past 3 years of licensed child care facilities;
Civil and criminal penalties for violations of licensing requirements:
Violation of the licensing requirements may result in civil penalties
of up to $250 per violation per day.
State: West Virginia;
Prohibitions on sex offenders working in or being present in child
care facilities: A mandatory condition of supervised release for
sexual offenders whose victims were minors is a prohibition on
employment within 1,000 feet of a child care facility;
Criminal-history check requirements for child care facilities:
Fingerprint-based national and state criminal-history checks are
required of all operators and employees responsible for the care of
children in all child care facilities;
Civil and criminal penalties for violations of licensing requirements:
Violation of the licensing requirements may result in license
revocation; continued operation after revocation is a misdemeanor.
State: Wisconsin;
Prohibitions on sex offenders working in or being present in child
care facilities: Convicted sex offenders whose victims were minors may
not be employed or volunteer in a position that requires interaction
with children;
Criminal-history check requirements for child care facilities: Abuse-
registry and fingerprint-based national and state criminal-history
checks are required of all operators, adult residents, and employees
and contractors with regular, direct contact with children, and adult
residents of licensed child care facilities (4 or more children).
Periodic checks are required every 4 years;
Civil and criminal penalties for violations of licensing requirements:
Violation of the licensing requirements may result in civil penalties
of up to $1,000 per violation per day.
State: Wyoming;
Prohibitions on sex offenders working in or being present in child
care facilities: None located;
Criminal-history check requirements for child care facilities: Abuse-
registry and state criminal-history checks are required of all staff
of licensed child care facilities (3 or more children);
Civil and criminal penalties for violations of licensing requirements:
Violation of the licensing requirements may result in license
revocation; continued operation after revocation is a misdemeanor.
Source: GAO analysis of relevant state laws.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] GAO, 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.: Oct. 10,
2007); Residential Programs: Selected Cases of Death, Abuse, and
Deceptive Marketing, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-713T] (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 24,
2008); 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); 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).
[2] For the purposes of our report, we define serious sexual offenses
as those sexual offenses that involve children or sexual abuse.
[3] Typically, family child care consists of one provider caring for
six or fewer children. Group home care usually involves two providers
caring for 7 to 12 children.
[4] State regulations may be more specific than statutes regarding
such things as the type of providers that must complete criminal
background checks, and the type of checks that must be conducted. For
recent studies looking at current state regulations regarding criminal-
history checks, see the National Association for Child Care Resource
and Referral Agencies' (NACCRRA) report We Can Do Better, 2011 and the
National Association of Regulatory Administration's 2008 Child Care
Licensing Study.
[5] 42 U.S.C. § 5119a.
[6] 42 U.S.C. §13041.
[7] 45 C.F.R. § 1301.31.
[8] 45 C.F.R. § 98.41.
[9] Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma,
Oregon, Texas, and Utah.
[10] Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, District of Columbia,
Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Mississippi, Montana, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North
Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, and
Virginia.
[11] Alaska, California, Delaware, Florida, Iowa, Tennessee,
Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
[12] Colorado, Georgia, Kansas, and South Dakota.
[13] California, Tennessee, and West Virginia.
[14] Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Iowa, Maine, Missouri, New
Hampshire, North Carolina, Utah, Vermont, and Virginia.
[15] Alaska, California, Colorado, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New
Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina. South
Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin.
[16] Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, District of Columbia,
Indiana, Kansas, Maine, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, South Dakota,
Tennessee, Utah, and Virginia. In addition, Idaho and Massachusetts
both require criminal-history checks for anyone with unsupervised
access to children in child care facilities, which could include
volunteers.
[17] Alaska, Arkansas, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Wisconsin.
In addition, Idaho and Massachusetts both require criminal-history
checks for anyone with unsupervised access to children in child care
facilities, which could include contractors.
[18] Kentucky, Massachusetts, Oklahoma, and Vermont.
[19] Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Virginia, and Wyoming.
[20] Arkansas, Colorado, Montana, and Washington.
[21] Arkansas, Ohio, Oregon, and Wisconsin.
[22] Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut,
Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois,
Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North
Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina,
South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin. In three
additional states (Montana, West Virginia, and Wyoming), licensing
violations may result in license suspension, and criminal penalties
attach to continued operation after suspension.
[23] Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida,
Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts,
Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New
Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin. In Vermont, licensing
violations may result in license suspension, and civil penalties
attach to continued operation after suspension.
[24] North Dakota.
[25] Mississippi.
[26] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/HEHS-00-28].
[27] In fiscal year 2010, Congress appropriated approximately $7.2
billion as well as approximately $2.1 billion in funds from the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to serve low-income families
and children that participate in this program.
[28] The CCDF received approximately $7 billion in fiscal year 2009,
including approximately $2 billion from the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009, primarily to help eligible low-income
families pay for child care.
[29] GAO, Child Care and Development Fund: Undercover Tests Show Five
State Programs Are Vulnerable to Fraud and Abuse, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-1062] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 22,
2010).
[30] These 11 states are Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Iowa, Maine,
Missouri, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Utah, Vermont, and Virginia.
[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 Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, 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 Web site,
[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.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [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:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 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, D.C. 20548:
