Missing Children
DOJ Could Enhance Oversight to Help Ensure That Law Enforcement Agencies Report Cases in a Timely Manner
Gao ID: GAO-11-444 June 21, 2011
Missing children who are not found quickly are at an increased risk of victimization. The National Child Search Assistance Act, as amended, requires that within 2 hours of receiving a missing child report, law enforcement agencies (LEAs) enter the report into the Department of Justice's (DOJ) National Crime Information Center (NCIC), a clearinghouse of information instantly available to LEAs nationwide. DOJ's Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS), the CJIS Advisory Policy Board (the Board), and state criminal justice agencies share responsibility for overseeing this requirement. As requested, GAO examined (1) CJIS's and the Board's efforts to implement and monitor compliance with the requirement; and (2) selected LEA-reported challenges with timely entry and DOJ's actions to assist LEAs in addressing them. GAO reviewed documents, such as agency guidelines, and interviewed officials from DOJ, six state criminal justice agencies, and nine LEAs selected in part based on missing children rates. The results are not generalizable to all states and LEAs, but provided insights on this issue.
CJIS and the Board have taken steps to help ensure implementation of the 2-hour entry rule, but could strengthen their oversight to better assure compliance with the rule. Starting in 2007, CJIS: (1) informed all state criminal justice agencies that LEAs will have 2 hours to enter reports of missing children into NCIC once they have collected the required data (e.g., child's biographical information); (2) provided guidance on how LEAs could document compliance with the rule; and (3) informed state criminal justice agencies that the Board had authorized CJIS to begin assessing compliance with the rule in audits starting in 2009. To help ensure compliance among all NCIC users, CJIS and the Board require state criminal justice agencies to audit all LEAs in the state that enter data into NCIC. However, CJIS and the Board have not taken steps to establish minimum audit standards for state criminal justice agencies to use in assessing LEAs' compliance with the 2-hour rule. In the absence of such standards, the selected six state criminal justice agencies GAO contacted used varied approaches to assess LEAs' compliance. For example, two were not using the 2-hour criterion, and the number of missing children records the six agencies reviewed to assess timeliness ranged from all records in one state to no records in another. The fact that the state agencies did not consistently apply the 2-hour criterion to review a sample of missing children records raises questions about the reliability of the information the agencies collect on LEA compliance. Establishing minimum standards for state agency audits could help provide CJIS with reasonable assurance that the audits contain reliable information on LEA compliance. Officials from eight of nine LEAs GAO contacted reported challenges to entering information on missing children into NCIC within 2 hours; CJIS and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) could use existing mechanisms to obtain and share information on challenges. Seven LEAs reported challenges determining whether a child is missing when there are custodial disputes. Six LEAs reported challenges obtaining information from child welfare agencies on missing children in the child welfare system. Officials from child welfare agencies in areas where LEAs reported this challenge said that they may not always have the information LEAs need, and are taking steps to ensure timely communication between their staff and LEAs. In association with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and other stakeholders, in 2006 OJJDP developed (1) a model policy stating that LEAs will accept reports of missing children even when custody has not been established and (2) sample self-assessments so LEAs could enhance their responses to missing children in the child welfare system. However, eight of the nine LEAs stated that these challenges persist. DOJ does not know the extent of these challenges across all LEAs and has limited capability to conduct such an assessment. By using existing CJIS and OJJDP mechanisms--such as CJIS's training for state agencies and OJJDP-funded training for LEAs--to obtain information on the extent to which LEAs face these and other challenges and provide examples of how some LEAs have mitigated the challenges, DOJ could be better positioned to carry out its oversight of NCIC with respect to assuring compliance with the 2-hour rule. GAO recommends that CJIS and the Board consider establishing minimum standards for states to use to monitor compliance with the 2-hour rule and CJIS and OJJDP use existing mechanisms to obtain and share information on LEA challenges and successful efforts to mitigate them. DOJ concurred.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:
Eileen R. Larence
Team:
Government Accountability Office: Homeland Security and Justice
Phone:
(202) 512-6510
GAO-11-444, Missing Children: DOJ Could Enhance Oversight to Help Ensure That Law Enforcement Agencies Report Cases in a Timely Manner
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-11-444
entitled 'Missing Children: DOJ Could Enhance Oversight to Help Ensure
That Law Enforcement Agencies Report Cases in a Timely Manner' which
was released on July 25, 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 Congressional Requesters:
June 2011:
Missing Children:
DOJ Could Enhance Oversight to Help Ensure That Law Enforcement
Agencies Report Cases in a Timely Manner:
GAO-11-444:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-11-444, a report to congressional requesters.
Why GAO Did This Study:
Missing children who are not found quickly are at an increased risk of
victimization. The National Child Search Assistance Act, as amended,
requires that within 2 hours of receiving a missing child report, law
enforcement agencies (LEAs) enter the report into the Department of
Justice‘s (DOJ) National Crime Information Center (NCIC), a
clearinghouse of information instantly available to LEAs nationwide.
DOJ‘s Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS), the CJIS Advisory
Policy Board (the Board), and state criminal justice agencies share
responsibility for overseeing this requirement. As requested, GAO
examined (1) CJIS‘s and the Board‘s efforts to implement and monitor
compliance with the requirement; and (2) selected LEA-reported
challenges with timely entry and DOJ‘s actions to assist LEAs in
addressing them. GAO reviewed documents, such as agency guidelines,
and interviewed officials from DOJ, six state criminal justice
agencies, and nine LEAs selected in part based on missing children
rates. The results are not generalizable to all states and LEAs, but
provided insights on this issue.
What GAO Found:
CJIS and the Board have taken steps to help ensure implementation of
the 2-hour entry rule, but could strengthen their oversight to better
assure compliance with the rule. Starting in 2007, CJIS: (1) informed
all state criminal justice agencies that LEAs will have 2 hours to
enter reports of missing children into NCIC once they have collected
the required data (e.g., child‘s biographical information); (2)
provided guidance on how LEAs could document compliance with the rule;
and (3) informed state criminal justice agencies that the Board had
authorized CJIS to begin assessing compliance with the rule in audits
starting in 2009. To help ensure compliance among all NCIC users, CJIS
and the Board require state criminal justice agencies to audit all
LEAs in the state that enter data into NCIC. However, CJIS and the
Board have not taken steps to establish minimum audit standards for
state criminal justice agencies to use in assessing LEAs‘ compliance
with the 2-hour rule. In the absence of such standards, the selected
six state criminal justice agencies GAO contacted used varied
approaches to assess LEAs‘ compliance. For example, two were not using
the 2-hour criterion, and the number of missing children records the
six agencies reviewed to assess timeliness ranged from all records in
one state to no records in another. The fact that the state agencies
did not consistently apply the 2-hour criterion to review a sample of
missing children records raises questions about the reliability of the
information the agencies collect on LEA compliance. Establishing
minimum standards for state agency audits could help provide CJIS with
reasonable assurance that the audits contain reliable information on
LEA compliance.
Officials from eight of nine LEAs GAO contacted reported challenges to
entering information on missing children into NCIC within 2 hours;
CJIS and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
(OJJDP) could use existing mechanisms to obtain and share information
on challenges. Seven LEAs reported challenges determining whether a
child is missing when there are custodial disputes. Six LEAs reported
challenges obtaining information from child welfare agencies on
missing children in the child welfare system. Officials from child
welfare agencies in areas where LEAs reported this challenge said that
they may not always have the information LEAs need, and are taking
steps to ensure timely communication between their staff and LEAs. In
association with the National Center for Missing and Exploited
Children and other stakeholders, in 2006 OJJDP developed (1) a model
policy stating that LEAs will accept reports of missing children even
when custody has not been established and (2) sample self-assessments
so LEAs could enhance their responses to missing children in the child
welfare system. However, eight of the nine LEAs stated that these
challenges persist. DOJ does not know the extent of these challenges
across all LEAs and has limited capability to conduct such an
assessment. By using existing CJIS and OJJDP mechanisms”such as CJIS‘s
training for state agencies and OJJDP-funded training for LEAs”to
obtain information on the extent to which LEAs face these and other
challenges and provide examples of how some LEAs have mitigated the
challenges, DOJ could be better positioned to carry out its oversight
of NCIC with respect to assuring compliance with the 2-hour rule.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that CJIS and the Board consider establishing minimum
standards for states to use to monitor compliance with the 2-hour rule
and CJIS and OJJDP use existing mechanisms to obtain and share
information on LEA challenges and successful efforts to mitigate them.
DOJ concurred.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-444] or key
components. For more information, contact Eileen Larence at (202) 512-
8777 or larencee@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Background:
CJIS Has Disseminated Guidelines for Timely Entry into NCIC, but
Establishing Minimum Standards for CSA Audits and Assessing Adherence
to Standards Could Strengthen CJIS's Oversight:
Selected LEAs Identified Challenges to Reporting Missing Children;
Using Existing Mechanisms to Obtain and Share Information on Such
Challenges Could Assist DOJ in Its Oversight Role:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Comments from the Federal Bureau of Investigation:
Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Figures:
Figure 1: Percentage of Missing Person Records in NCIC by Age Group as
of January 1, 2011:
Figure 2: CJIS and CSA Shared Roles for Monitoring Compliance with
NCIC Requirements:
Figure 3: CJIS's Assessment of Timeliness of Entry of Missing Children
Records into NCIC:
Abbreviations:
CJIS: Criminal Justice Information Services:
CSACJIS: Systems Agency:
DOJ: Department of Justice:
FBI: Federal Bureau of Investigation:
LEAs: law enforcement agencies:
NCIC: National Crime Information Center:
NCMEC: National Center for Missing and Exploited Children:
OJJDP: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
June 21, 2011:
The Honorable Harry Reid:
Majority Leader:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Charles E. Schumer:
Chairman:
Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security:
Committee on the Judiciary:
United States Senate:
According to the most comprehensive national survey to date, between 1
million and 1.5 million children go missing or run away each year.
[Footnote 1] Federal law requires that within 2 hours of receiving a
report that an individual under the age of 21 (a child) is missing,
federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies (LEAs) are to enter
the report into the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) National
Crime Information Center (NCIC).[Footnote 2] NCIC is an electronic
repository of data on crimes and criminals of nationwide interest and
a locator file for missing and unidentified persons. NCIC helps law
enforcement locate missing children by making information on the child
instantly available to law enforcement agencies across the country.
Timely entry of information on missing children into NCIC by law
enforcement is important to recovery efforts because, according to a
2006 study by the Washington State Attorney General and the Department
of Justice's (DOJ) Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention (OJJDP), if an abducted child is murdered, the murder
occurs within 3 hours of abduction in 76 percent of cases.[Footnote 3]
In addition, timely entry into NCIC may play a role in law enforcement
more quickly locating, and providing support for, children who may be
victimized or suffer negative health consequences when they run away
from home. A national study of caretakers and children showed that up
to 71 percent of children who run away may have been endangered during
their runaway episode by virtue of factors such as substance
dependency, use of hard drugs, sexual or physical abuse, their young
age, or presence in a place where criminal activity was occurring.
[Footnote 4] Incidents of untimely entry of reports of missing
children into NCIC by law enforcement agencies have been the subject
of investigations by several news publications, and have raised
concerns about the ability of law enforcement to initiate searches,
locate, and provide support for missing children.
The National Child Search Assistance Act of 1990 established reporting
requirements that addressed hindrances to the timely entry of missing
children into criminal information databases.[Footnote 5] Among other
things, the act required states to ensure (1) that LEAs do not impose
a waiting period before accepting reports of missing children and (2)
that LEAs immediately enter information on the missing child into the
state's law enforcement database and NCIC.[Footnote 6] The Adam Walsh
Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (Adam Walsh Act) amended the
National Child Search Assistance Act by establishing requirements for
handling reports of missing children.[Footnote 7] Among other things,
the Adam Walsh Act established a measurable and more specific
requirement that reports be entered in NCIC "within 2 hours of
receipt." Congressional sponsors of the Adam Walsh Act characterized
this change as improving the chances of recovery for missing children,
because of research findings that showed that children who were
abducted and murdered were killed within 3 hours of being kidnapped.
[Footnote 8] The DOJ's FBI Criminal Justice Information Services
Division (CJIS) and state criminal justice agencies (known as CJIS
Systems Agencies, or CSAs) share the responsibility of ensuring timely
entry of information on missing children into NCIC. The CJIS Advisory
Policy Board (the Board) is responsible for establishing policy and
providing advice and guidance on NCIC use by federal, state, and local
LEAs.
You asked us to conduct a review of reporting methods LEAs used in
providing information to NCIC. In response to your request, we
examined:
* the extent to which CJIS and the Board have taken steps to help
ensure implementation of the 2-hour requirement for entering reports
of missing children into NCIC (referred to in this report as 'the 2-
hour entry requirement'), and mechanisms they have put in place to
monitor compliance with the requirement; and:
* what challenges, if any, selected LEAs identify as affecting the
ability of law enforcement to enter reports of missing children into
NCIC as required and how DOJ is addressing these challenges.
To address the first objective, we reviewed relevant documentation,
including reporting requirements for missing children set forth in
federal and selected state legislation and FBI policies and guidelines
detailing the agency's process for monitoring compliance with the 2-
hour entry requirement. We also reviewed written CSA audit policies
and procedures. We interviewed senior CJIS officials to discuss the
FBI's role in ensuring timely entry of missing children reports into
NCIC, including CJIS requirements for CSA audits of LEAs. We also
interviewed senior officials overseeing audits and local NCIC usage in
six selected CSAs. We selected CSAs representing six states, based on
a combination of factors, including whether CJIS found the CSA to be
in compliance with NCIC policy for timely entry of missing children
records in prior audits, and ensuring a mix of high and low rates of
missing children reported to NCIC by LEAs. The states we selected
were: California, Illinois, Nevada, New York, Virginia, and West
Virginia. We cannot generalize our work from these 6 entities to CSAs
in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, but the information we
obtained provides examples of the way in which these CSAs were
monitoring timely entry of missing children reports into NCIC by LEAs.
We compared CJIS's audit policies and procedures with criteria in
Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government to determine
if CJIS has control activities in place to enforce its directives and
achieve compliance objectives.[Footnote 9] To determine the extent to
which CSA audits collect consistent and reliable information on LEA
compliance with the 2 hour entry requirement, we compared CSA audit
approaches for assessing LEAs' compliance with available NCIC audit
policy and guidance articulated by CJIS.
To determine what challenges LEAs face, if any, in reporting to NCIC,
we interviewed senior officials in LEAs serving nine large and mid-
sized cities or counties in the six states we had selected for our
first objective: Los Angeles, Calif.; Visalia, Calif.; Chicago, Ill.;
Peoria, Ill.,; Las Vegas, Nev.; New York City, N.Y.; Poughkeepsie,
N.Y.; Fairfax County, Va.; and Morgantown, W.Va. We obtained
perspectives on challenges in reporting to NCIC from LEA officials
responsible for the following activities:
* implementing policies guiding the reporting of missing children into
NCIC;
* training law enforcement staff on responding to reports of missing
children;
* taking reports of missing children from the public and entering
information into NCIC; and:
* conducting investigations of these reports.
We selected the nine locations based on a combination of factors,
including ensuring that we included both large and mid-sized cities or
counties located in several different geographic regions of the
country. At three of the nine locations where data were available to
further identify any challenges LEAs face in entering missing children
reports into NCIC, we discussed with law enforcement officials
specific missing children cases that CJIS had determined were not
entered into NCIC in a timely fashion when it conducted its most
recent audit in that state. Additionally, at six of the nine locations
we inquired about cases reported by parents and caregivers (as opposed
to law enforcement) to the National Center for Missing and Exploited
Children (NCMEC) from June 2009 through March 2010, where NCMEC staff
said they were not able to locate a record for the missing child in
NCIC.[Footnote 10] In California, Illinois, and New York, we also met
with officials from child welfare agencies to discuss their
perspectives on issues raised by law enforcement officials regarding
reporting and investigating cases involving missing children in the
child welfare system.[Footnote 11] We cannot generalize our work from
these nine locations to LEAs nationwide, but the information we
obtained provides perspectives on the challenges law-enforcement
personnel face in entering reports of missing children into NCIC.
To determine what steps DOJ has taken to address these challenges, we
reviewed guidance, standards, and model policies and practices for
responding to missing children developed from 2004 to 2011 with
funding from DOJ's Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention (OJJDP) and Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.
We interviewed senior officials from OJJDP's Missing and Exploited
Children Program, and from NCMEC, which is also required by statute to
disseminate on a national basis, information relating to innovative
and model programs, services, and legislation that benefit missing and
exploited children.[Footnote 12] We reviewed DOJ's actions to address
these challenges and compared them to criteria in Standards for
Internal Control in the Federal Government to determine the extent to
which DOJ has identified and analyzed the risks internal and external
sources pose to the agency's achieving its oversight role over NCIC
with respect to helping ensure compliance with the 2-hour requirement.
[Footnote 13]
We conducted this performance audit from January 2010 to June 2011, in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Background:
NCIC is an extensive computerized criminal justice information system
maintained by the FBI that serves as a repository of data on crimes
and criminals of nationwide interest and as a locator file for missing
and unidentified persons. Over 92,000 law enforcement agencies and
other criminal justice partners have access to NCIC, which includes
approximately 35,000 federal, state, and local law enforcement
agencies in the United States. As of January 1, 2011, NCIC contained
85,820 active records[Footnote 14] in its missing persons file. See
figure 1 for additional information on the age of missing persons
reported by law enforcement to NCIC.
Figure 1: Percentage of Missing Person Records in NCIC by Age Group as
of January 1, 2011:
[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart]
Missing individuals under age 18: 45%;
Missing individuals age 18-20: 12%;
Missing individuals age 21 and older: 43%.
Source: GAO analysis of CJIS data.
Note: Percentages calculated as of January 1, 2011, when there were
85,820 active missing person records.
[End of figure]
NCIC Management:
NCIC is managed cooperatively by FBI's CJIS--the division within the
FBI that operates as the focal point and central repository for
criminal justice information services--and the state and local
agencies that access the system. An Advisory Process, consisting of an
Advisory Policy Board (the Board) with representatives from criminal
justice and national security agencies throughout the United States,
and working groups are responsible for establishing policy for NCIC
use by federal, state, and local agencies and providing advice and
guidance on all CJIS Division programs.[Footnote 15] In addition, the
Board creates ad hoc subcommittees as necessary to review policies and
develop alternatives or recommendations for the Board's consideration.
NCIC policies and procedures are documented in the NCIC 2000 Operating
Manual and the CJIS Security Policy.[Footnote 16]
Local level governance of NCIC use is performed by the CSA. The CSA is
a criminal justice agency that has overall responsibility for the
administration and usage of NCIC, including providing quality
assurance and training and assuring LEA compliance with operating
procedures within its jurisdiction.[Footnote 17] Most CSAs are state
agencies that oversee NCIC use by all LEAs that enter data into NCIC
in the state. A CSA may be a law enforcement agency, such as a state
police agency, that also enters data into NCIC, in addition to
overseeing the administration of the state's NCIC system. Furthermore,
the Board requires that each local LEA appoint a Terminal Agency
Coordinator who serves as the representative and point of contact for
disseminating information on NCIC policies and procedures to that
agency.
NCIC Audits:
CJIS shares with the CSAs the responsibility for monitoring compliance
with NCIC policy, as shown in figure 2. CJIS policy, as approved by
the Board, calls for triennial audits of each CSA to assess the CSA's
compliance with NCIC policies, including the 2-hour entry requirement.
Further, CJIS relies on the CSAs to audit all LEAs that enter data
into NCIC in each state, to help ensure compliance among all NCIC
users.
Figure 2: CJIS and CSA Shared Roles for Monitoring Compliance with
NCIC Requirements:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
CJIS Audit:
CJIS triennially audits each CSA.
Pre-audit questionnaire sent to the CSA and selected LEAs in the state.
On-site visit with the CSA and the selected LEAs:
* Data quality review of records entered into NCIC by the selected
LEAs;
* Interviews with CSA and LEA personnel to determine if the agencies
adhere to NCIC policies and procedures: Includes review of CSA audit
requirement: CSA Audit:
- CSA triennially audits each LEA that enters data into NCIC;
- LEA-level findings.
CJIS provides the CSA with a draft audit report with CSA-level
findings and recommendations.
Final audit report with CSA responses are provided to the Sanctions Ad
Hoc Subcommittee of the CJIS Advisory Policy Board to determine if
additional actions or sanctions are needed.
Sources: GAO analysis of CJIS data; Art Explosion (images).
[End of figure]
CJIS's NCIC performance-based audit program tasks the CJIS Audit Unit
with conducting a compliance audit of each CSA to verify compliance
with federal laws, such as the 2-hour entry requirement for reports of
missing children, and other CJIS policies and regulations. The purpose
of the audit is to:
* assess CSA compliance with NCIC system policy requirements;
* assess the quality, integrity, and security of the data maintained
in and accessed from a variety of criminal justice information systems
and networks; and:
* ensure timely and relevant criminal justice information is made
available to authorized users.
As part of its audit of CSAs, CJIS reviews random samples of records
of missing persons in selected LEAs, and assesses all missing children
records contained in the sample to determine compliance with the 2-
hour entry requirement. During the current triennial audit cycle, the
CJIS Audit Unit plans to audit CSAs in all 50 states plus the District
of Columbia from October 1, 2009, through September 30, 2012. CJIS
funding for conducting NCIC audits was $207,570 in fiscal year 2009
and $309,854 in fiscal year 2010, and is projected to be $244,202 in
fiscal year 2011.[Footnote 18]
CJIS's audit of CSAs consists of a pre-audit questionnaire, on-site
visit, and follow-up report. The pre-audit questionnaire is sent to
CSAs and selected LEAs within the state to obtain written responses as
well as assist CJIS in gathering the relevant information to better
inform the audit process. In selecting LEAs, CJIS takes into account a
number of factors, which may include the number of records entered by
each LEA, the total number of records to be reviewed in the state, the
LEA's geographic location to reduce the time and travel burden imposed
on CJIS audit staff, whether the LEA was previously found to have
extensive and/or serious NCIC noncompliance issues, and whether CSA
officials request that CJIS include the LEA in its audits based on CSA
concerns from prior CSA audits.[Footnote 19] The on-site visit
consists of interviews of CSA and LEA personnel to determine
compliance with NCIC policies and procedures, and a data quality
review of selected LEA NCIC records. In designing its review of these
records, CJIS seeks to balance the need for a cost-effective,
logistically feasible approach, with the need to ensure the review
obtains statistically valid information on the accuracy, completeness,
and timeliness of all missing person records.[Footnote 20]
During the post-audit phase, CJIS prepares a draft audit report that
includes findings from the interviews with the agency personnel as
well as the data-quality reviews and recommendations for agency
compliance. The report is provided to the CSA for review, and the
final report, including the CSA's responses to any recommendations, is
forwarded to the Sanctions Ad Hoc Subcommittee of the Board. This
subcommittee is responsible for evaluating the results of audits
conducted of participants in the CJIS Division programs. The
subcommittee makes specific recommendations to the Board concerning
sanctions that should be imposed on agencies that are not in
compliance with the policies established by the Board for the
operation of the CJIS Division programs. Sanctions may be in the form
of a letter of concern from the subcommittee enumerating audit
problems that had not been resolved from previous audit cycles, or a
letter of sanction, which is similar to the letter of concern, but
with stronger language and specific compliance terms and procedures.
If the CSA does not adequately address noncompliance issues, the Board
has the option of terminating the state's access to NCIC.
Each CSA is also required by CJIS and the Board to establish a system
to, at a minimum, triennially audit all LEAs that enter data into NCIC
within their jurisdiction, to ensure compliance with NCIC policy and
regulations. Each CSA is responsible for developing an audit program
to meet this requirement and the resulting audit approach can vary
across CSAs. We discuss the audit approaches used to assess the
timeliness of missing children records by the 6 selected CSAs later in
this report. During its audits, CJIS assesses the extent to which the
CSAs are fulfilling the requirement to audit all LEAs that enter data
into NCIC under their jurisdiction.
CJIS Has Disseminated Guidelines for Timely Entry into NCIC, but
Establishing Minimum Standards for CSA Audits and Assessing Adherence
to Standards Could Strengthen CJIS's Oversight:
CJIS and the Board Have Taken Steps to Help Ensure Compliance with the
2-hour Requirement and CJIS Has Issued Audit Recommendations to Non-
Compliant CSAs:
CJIS and the Board have taken a number of steps to help ensure that
LEAs implement the 2-hour entry requirement. Beginning in January
2007, CJIS:
* informed CSAs and LEAs that the Adam Walsh Act of July 2006 required
all reports of missing persons under the age of 21 to be entered into
NCIC within 2 hours of receipt;
* provided guidance to CSAs and LEAs regarding how LEAs might best
document compliance with the requirement; and:
* informed CSAs and LEAs that the Board had authorized it to begin
assessing noncompliance with the requirement in October 2009 and
possibly subject noncompliant CSAs to sanctions beginning in October
2012.
Starting with its CSA audits conducted in January 2007, CJIS provided
verbal and written information to all CSAs and the selected LEAs it
audited that LEAs will have 2 hours to enter reports of missing
children into NCIC from the time LEAs complete collecting 10 data
elements required by statute.[Footnote 21] As the Adam Walsh Act did
not specify how compliance was to be measured, CJIS started measuring
the 2 hours once the required data were obtained because this is how
CJIS has measured timely entry requirements for all other types of
NCIC records, such as missing persons age 21 and older and wanted
persons. In addition, CJIS recognized that law enforcement may face
challenges obtaining complete information at the time of the initial
report, for example, from parents who are traumatized by a child's
disappearance. If the elapsed time between obtaining and entering the
information on a missing child was equal to or less than 2 hours, CJIS
would deem the entry to be in compliance with the 2-hour entry
requirement. Conversely, if the elapsed time was more than 2 hours,
CJIS would deem the entry to be out of compliance with the 2-hour
entry requirement.[Footnote 22] Generally, according to CJIS
officials, if CJIS finds that 10 percent or more of missing children
records reviewed are out of compliance, CJIS would make an audit
recommendation requiring the CSA to take actions to address non-
compliance. The officials also said that CJIS provides and discusses
all findings from its LEA reviews with the cognizant LEAs.
CJIS more broadly disseminated information to CSAs and LEAs regarding
how timeliness would be assessed via (1) a January 2008 letter to the
heads of all CSAs and (2) a June 2009 update to NCIC's Operating
Manual.[Footnote 23] In CJIS's letter to the heads of the CSAs and in
the update to the NCIC Operating Manual, CJIS recommended that LEAs
use a time and date stamp to document when they completed collecting
the required information from the party or parties reporting the
missing child. CJIS also informed CSAs and LEAs that it would assess
timeliness using the 2-hour criterion and make audit recommendations
that would require CSA responses in the audit cycle beginning in
October 2009. This start date was selected because of the Board's
decision to grant a grace period to allow agencies time to establish
and institute procedures to accurately document the receipt of the
minimum data necessary for entry. CJIS did not specifically require
LEAs to use the recommended time and date stamps, but if an audited
LEA did not document the date and time it received the minimum data,
CJIS stated it would consider any unjustified delay in entering
information on a missing child into NCIC as untimely.[Footnote 24]
This could result in CJIS making an audit recommendation that the CSA
take action to address the noncompliance and the Sanctions Ad Hoc
Subcommittee applying sanctions in the future.
As of January 2011, CJIS had audited 22 CSAs using the 2-hour
criterion for entering reports of missing children into NCIC. Of the
22 audits, 10 audit reports were finalized and 12 were in draft form.
Of the 10 CSAs where audit reports were final, CJIS found 9 CSAs to be
out of compliance with the 2-hour entry requirement and issued audit
recommendations to them to take actions to ensure timely entry. As
shown in figure 3, the percentage of missing children records assessed
by CJIS as having been entered into NCIC within 2 hours ranged from 53
percent to 91 percent across the 10 states; and the percentage of
records entered into NCIC after 2 hours ranged from 9 percent to 47
percent.
Figure 3: CJIS's Assessment of Timeliness of Entry of Missing Children
Records into NCIC:
[Refer to PDF for image: horizontal bar graph]
State 1: 106 records assessed;
Timely: 91%;
Untimely: 9%.
State 2: 58 records assessed;
Timely: 76%;
Untimely: 24%.
State 3: 96 records assessed;
Timely: 60%;
Untimely: 40%.
State 4: 110 records assessed;
Timely: 73%;
Untimely: 27%.
State 5: 156 records assessed;
Timely: 59%;
Untimely: 41%.
State 6: 156 records assessed;
Timely: 53%;
Untimely: 47%.
State 7: 91 records assessed;
Timely: 81%;
Untimely: 19%.
State 8: 210 records assessed;
Timely: 53%;
Untimely: 47%.
State 9: 64 records assessed;
Timely: 59%;
Untimely: 41%.
State 10: 217 records assessed;
Timely: 72%;
Untimely: 28%;
Total of all 10 states: 1,264 records assessed;
Timely: 66% (832 records);
Untimely: 34% (432 records).
Source: GAO analysis of CJIS data.
Note: Missing children records that were entered into NCIC in 2 hours
or less are timely and missing children records that were entered into
NCIC in more than 2 hours are untimely. CJIS determines the number of
records to review in each state through a random-sampling formula
designed to provide statistically valid information on all missing
person records (not just those pertaining to missing children).
[End of figure]
During the audits, CJIS attempts to capture information on the reasons
missing children records are untimely to assist the CSAs in
identifying issues that they may need to address statewide in order to
become compliant with the 2-hour entry requirement. For each untimely
missing child record, CJIS audit staff asks the LEA personnel to
provide a description of the reason that led to the delay in entry.
[Footnote 25] However, for 82 percent of the 432 untimely missing
children records identified across the 10 states, CJIS officials told
us they did not know the reason for the delay because the LEAs could
not provide them with information on the reasons why the records were
not entered within 2 hours. For the 79 untimely missing children
records where LEAs were able to provide CJIS information on the causes
for the delay in NCIC entry, two predominant reasons were given:
* LEA personnel did not know about the 2-hour entry requirement.
* Responding officers did not provide the information on the missing
child in a timely manner. This could occur, for example, if officers
began investigating the case before submitting the report of the
missing child, waited until the end of the shift to submit a report,
were dispatched to another service call prior to submitting the
report, or did not deem it necessary to submit the report immediately
for NCIC entry because they considered the child to be a frequent run-
away.
CJIS officials also said that in cases where CJIS auditors could not
find documentation of the date and time that the minimum data required
for NCIC entry were obtained, they deemed the entry to be untimely. In
written responses to CJIS's findings of untimely entry, CSAs generally
focused on their plans to provide training to personnel responsible
for entering reports of missing children into NCIC and educate
personnel through the CSAs' audits of LEAs.
CJIS informed CSAs that, in order to allow for an appropriate
transition period, the Board had decided that audit recommendations
based on the 2-hour entry requirement would not be forwarded to the
Board's Sanctions Ad Hoc Subcommittee until the audit cycle beginning
in October 2012. Thus, while CSAs must respond to CJIS audit
recommendations regarding non-compliance with the 2-hour entry
requirement, non-compliance in this area will not be a factor in the
Board's decisions about whether to impose sanctions on a CSA until
October 2012.
CJIS Could Better Ensure Compliance with the 2-Hour Entry Requirement
by Working with CSAs and the Board to Establish Minimum Audit
Standards:
During its audits of CSAs, CJIS verifies that each CSA is conducting
the triennial audits that are required by CJIS and the Board. However,
the Board has not taken steps to establish audit standards that
require CSAs to assess compliance with the 2-hour entry
requirement.[Footnote 26] Standards for Internal Control in the
Federal Government call for management to design control activities to
help ensure that its control objectives are met.[Footnote 27] Such
standards could better position CJIS and the Board to ensure that the
CSA audits accomplish CJIS's specific oversight and compliance
objectives for timely entry of missing children records.
In the absence of standards, we found that audit approaches used by
the 6 selected CSAs to assess compliance with the 2-hour entry
requirement varied. For example, lacking standards, two CSAs were not
using the 2-hour criterion to assess timeliness and the six CSAs
varied in the number of missing children records reviewed. The number
of missing children records reviewed ranged from all active records in
one state to no records in another. The fact that CSAs were not
consistently applying the 2-hour criterion to review a sample of
missing children records raises questions about the reliability of CSA
information on LEA compliance. The two CSAs that were not using the 2-
hour criterion had different approaches to assessing timeliness:
* Officials for one CSA stated they used an "immediate" criterion to
assess the timeliness of missing children records, which they said was
stricter than the 2-hour entry requirement. However, the CSA did not
have documentation on the time frame that was to be used for measuring
"immediate" entry or how it assessed compliance with this criterion.
Thus, CSA auditors could not demonstrate LEAs' compliance with the 2-
hour entry requirement.
* One CSA relied on LEAs to complete a questionnaire that asks, among
other things, if the agencies impose a waiting period before taking
reports of missing children and if there is a "large delay" between
the time a missing person report is taken and the time it is entered
into NCIC. However, the questionnaire does not define what the CSA
considers to be a "large delay," and the CSA does not test for
compliance. Therefore, auditors for this CSA also could not
demonstrate LEAs' compliance with the 2-hour entry requirement.
[Footnote 28]
CSAs were also not consistent in the number of missing children
records they assessed for compliance with the 2-hour entry
requirement, specifically:
* One CSA (the CSA mentioned above that relied on LEA responses to a
questionnaire) did not review any missing children records because the
state had over 500 LEAs and, according to CSA officials, a limited
number of auditing staff.
* One CSA determined the number of missing children records to review
at each LEA based upon the LEA's entry error rate--the portion of
records that were untimely, incomplete, or did not comply with other
entry requirements--from its past CSA audit. This approach resulted in
the CSA reviewing 2 missing person records out of about 400 at one LEA.
* One CSA generally reviewed 4 to 10 missing children records from
each LEA it audited. This sampling approach resulted in the CSA
reviewing about the same number of records from an LEA with over 1,250
active missing children records as from an LEA with about 100 active
missing children records.
* One CSA generally reviewed 10 percent of all missing person records
from each LEA it audited, some portion of which would be missing
children records. The CSA also imposed a minimum of 20 missing person
records to be reviewed. If a LEA had fewer than 20 missing person
records in NCIC, then the CSA would review all records.
* One CSA reviewed 10 percent of active missing children records from
large LEAs, such as one with over 800 missing children records in
NCIC, and all records from the remaining LEAs it audited.
* One CSA reviewed all active missing children records from each LEA
it audited.
We do not know the extent to which the variability we identified in
CSA audit approaches exists across all CSAs. However, our findings
that one CSA did not assess any missing children records and other
CSAs reviewed a relatively small number of records raises questions
about the CSAs' and, in turn, CJIS's ability to draw conclusions
regarding LEAs' compliance with the 2-hour entry requirement for
missing children.
CJIS officials acknowledged that CSA audits would be more useful if
they measured LEAs' compliance with the 2-hour criterion and reviewed
a sample of missing children records to assess compliance with the
entry requirement, but CJIS and the Board do not require CSAs to
incorporate either of these into their audits. CJIS officials said
that when CSAs request audit guidance, CJIS makes information
available to them on its audit methodology and protocols, which
include applying the 2-hour criterion to assess a sample of missing
children records. Standards for Internal Control in the Federal
Government call for agencies to ensure control activities are in place
that enforce management's directives and effectively accomplish
agencies' control objectives[Footnote 29]. Without such minimum audit
standards for assessing compliance with the entry requirement--
including applying the 2-hour criterion and how to sample missing
children records--CSAs' audits may not be collecting as consistent and
reliable information on LEA compliance with the requirement as they
could. Minimum standards could also help CJIS better accomplish its
specific oversight and compliance objectives for timely entry of
reports of missing children. We recognize that when CSAs conduct
audits, they have multiple responsibilities to ensure compliance with
all NCIC policies and face resource constraints that may limit their
ability to review missing children records for timeliness. Therefore,
it could be helpful for CJIS, CSAs, and the Board to collaborate in
developing minimum standards that are both feasible to implement and
provide reliable information on LEA compliance. Once standards are
established, CJIS could help ensure that CSA audits are meeting
standards by reviewing the audit approaches that CSAs use to assess
timeliness. This type of review is another key internal control
activity that could help CJIS achieve its oversight and compliance
objectives for the 2-hour entry requirement for reports of missing
children.
Selected LEAs Identified Challenges to Reporting Missing Children;
Using Existing Mechanisms to Obtain and Share Information on Such
Challenges Could Assist DOJ in Its Oversight Role:
Officials from eight of the nine LEAs we contacted identified custody
disputes and coordination with child welfare agencies as potential
impediments to reporting missing children to NCIC in a timely manner
or investigating these cases. OJJDP has funded research and policy
development to produce guidance in these areas, but CJIS and OJJDP
could take additional steps to better position DOJ to carry out its
oversight role over NCIC, with respect to helping ensure compliance
with the 2-hour requirement.
Challenges Relating to Custody Determination May Delay Reporting or
Investigating Missing Children:
Custodial issues may come into play when a child is missing as a
result of having been removed from his or her usual place of residence
by a family member. Officials from all of the nine LEAs we met with
reported that the responding officer may need to ascertain the
custodial arrangements for the child and whether the report is the
result of a misunderstanding between family members or constitutes an
abduction by a family member. More specifically, officials from seven
of the nine LEAs reported that challenges in making this determination
may delay reporting or investigation of the case.[Footnote 30] Of the
seven LEAs that raised custody-determination issues as a challenge,
officials in five LEAs said that where a missing child case may
involve interference by a noncustodial family member, the report
cannot be taken by law enforcement unless a court docket number or
judge's order establishing custody is first produced. In one case in
one of these LEAs, waiting for court paperwork resulted in a 2-day
delay between receiving a report from the parent, and entering the
report into NCIC. Officials in two of the seven LEAs said that further
steps must be taken to determine custody when the missing child's
parents were never married and do not have a custody agreement, or
when there are competing custody orders from different states that
must be resolved. These steps can delay reporting into NCIC or
investigating the case.
OJJDP, NCMEC, and the International Association of Chiefs of Police
have taken steps to try to address these issues. For example, in 2006,
NCMEC and the International Association of Chiefs of Police, with
funding from OJJDP, developed a model missing children's policy for
law enforcement agencies, which agencies could use to establish
guidelines and responsibilities for agency personnel in responding to
reports of missing children. The model policy contains a provision
stating that the LEA will accept reports of missing children when it
can be demonstrated that the child has been removed, without
explanation, from the child's usual place of residence, even if
custody has not been formally established.[Footnote 31] OJJDP
officials stated that NCMEC currently makes use of the model policy in
its Missing and Exploited Children Chief Executive Officer Seminars
for police chiefs, sheriffs, and communication center managers. NCMEC
requests that participants provide a copy of their agency's policy on
missing children in advance of the seminar, and NCMEC will review the
policies and offer suggestions for improvement or refer the
participants to the model policy developed by NCMEC and the
International Association of Chiefs of Police. In 2009, NCMEC also
updated guidance for parents and attorneys addressing family
abductions, emphasizing in several places the necessity for law
enforcement to report to NCIC within 2 hours, even if custody has not
yet been determined.[Footnote 32]
Challenges to Coordination between LEAs and Child Welfare Agencies May
Delay Reporting or Investigating Missing Children:
Officials from six of the nine LEAs we interviewed reported that
difficulty in obtaining information about missing children who are in
the child welfare system[Footnote 33] (which includes individuals in
the care of foster-care group homes) may delay reporting to NCIC or
the investigation of the episode.[Footnote 34] These officials stated
that the foster-care group homes do not always collect information--
such as the child's height and weight or parental information--that
law enforcement needs to complete a missing person report or the
mandatory fields in NCIC. Officials from three LEAs stated that while
the lack of such information from the foster-care group home does not
prevent the initial reporting to NCIC, the lack of additional
information--such as a recent photo of the child--may delay the
investigation of a missing child because law enforcement must spend
time obtaining the necessary information. Furthermore, officials from
three of the six LEAs that raised coordination with child welfare
agencies as a challenge said that certain practices of foster-care
group homes may result in reporting delays. For example, these
officials stated that personnel from foster-care group homes sometimes
reported the same incident multiple times to law enforcement, which
would require law enforcement personnel to determine whether the
existing record in NCIC was closed and could be removed from the
system in order to enter the most recent reported incident, or whether
the new report was the same as the prior report that had already been
entered into NCIC. In one LEA, officials stated that in one week, they
had received approximately 10 such duplicate reports of missing
children, the majority coming from a single foster-care group home.
Officials from one LEA stated that some of the foster-care group homes
in the jurisdiction do not always inform law enforcement when a child
has been located, thus requiring law enforcement, when receiving a new
report for the same child, to conduct research into whether a prior
case should have been closed before entering a new record.
Officials from the three child welfare agencies we contacted in three
of the four states where LEA officials reported challenges in
coordinating with child welfare agencies noted that in some cases,
foster-care group homes may not have the information law enforcement
needs to enter reports of missing children into NCIC, but stated that
this situation does not occur very frequently. The officials said that
ensuring that a recent photograph of a child is available has been a
challenge and that they are working to have a recent photograph
available for each child under their care. The officials also
acknowledged that their law enforcement partners have raised concerns
about foster-care group homes filing multiple reports for the same
missing child episode and about some child welfare personnel not
informing law enforcement when a child has been located. Officials
from two of the child welfare agencies stated that high staff turnover
among child welfare personnel may be a reason why some personnel do
not know how to best coordinate with law enforcement. According to
these officials, child welfare agencies may need to provide additional
training and oversight to ensure that child welfare personnel
understand clearly when a child should be reported missing to law
enforcement and communicate in a timely manner with law enforcement
officials to inform them when children are located or return.
DOJ, NCMEC, and the Child Welfare League of America have taken steps
to try to assist LEAs and child welfare agencies in addressing these
issues. For example, concerns about timely reporting and investigation
of children missing from care were highlighted by NCMEC in guidance it
issued in 2006 with funding from OJJDP.[Footnote 35] The guidance
states that collaboration between LEAs and child welfare agencies is
necessary to ensure that children missing from care are reported to
law enforcement, and provides a sample self-assessment for LEAs to use
to help them develop policies and procedures to enhance LEAs'
responses to children missing from care. The self-assessment
recommends that LEAs discuss with child welfare agencies the type of
information LEAs need from child welfare agencies in order to complete
a missing person report, and ensure that law enforcement officers have
a way to access child welfare data or caseworkers 24 hours a day, 7
days a week. The Child Welfare League of America, in partnership with
NCMEC in 2005, developed guidelines for standardized child welfare
intake forms to ensure information necessary for NCIC entry is
routinely maintained by foster-care providers.[Footnote 36] DOJ's
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services in 2006 also funded
development of a guide focusing on juvenile runaways that recommended
that LEAs work with foster-care group home providers to develop joint
protocols for reporting and sharing information.[Footnote 37]
Existing CJIS and OJJDP Mechanisms Could Be Useful for Collecting and
Sharing Information about LEA Challenges to Timely Reporting:
The fact that officials from eight of the nine LEAs we contacted
reported facing challenges entering missing children information into
NCIC within 2 hours due to custody disputes and coordination with
child welfare agencies--even in the context of efforts by DOJ to
develop and disseminate guidance regarding these issues--raises
questions about the extent to which LEAs are well-positioned to comply
with the 2-hour entry requirement. According to OJJDP officials,
although guidance relating to custody disputes and coordination with
child welfare agencies was, for the most part, developed prior to the
passage of the 2-hour entry requirement in 2006, OJJDP believes the
guidance remains useful in helping LEAs address these challenges, and
has not undertaken additional efforts to update it. According to the
officials, the guidance is disseminated widely to law enforcement
personnel in the field, through national conferences and other
mechanisms, and is used in training courses funded by OJJDP and
provided by NCMEC.
DOJ does not know the extent to which the challenges we identified in
our LEA interviews exist across all LEAs. However, CJIS officials told
us that due to the limited scope of its audits and the limited
investigative expertise of its auditors, CJIS's Audit Unit would not
be in a position to assess local challenges to reporting missing
children to NCIC as part of CJIS's triennial audit cycle. We recognize
that CJIS's Audit Unit may be limited in its ability to conduct a
nationwide assessment of the challenges that LEAs face in meeting the
2-hour reporting requirement. We also recognize that when CSAs conduct
local audits of each LEA in their respective states every 3 years,
they have multiple responsibilities to ensure compliance with all NCIC
policies and face resource constraints that may limit their ability to
assess local challenges to reporting. However, there are other
existing CJIS and OJJDP mechanisms that could be useful for collecting
and sharing information about LEA challenges to timely reporting and
the ways in which some LEAs have successfully addressed these
challenges. For example, the CJIS Advisory Policy Board's working
groups and subcommittees and CJIS's voluntary annual training for
representatives of all CSAs and selected LEAs in each state could be
useful for obtaining information on the extent and severity of
challenges faced by LEAs.[Footnote 38] They could also be useful for
disseminating information on how LEAs have successfully implemented
forms or protocols or collaborated with foster-care group homes to
ensure missing children are reported in a timely fashion. In addition,
OJJDP could obtain information on challenges to timely reporting and
disseminate information on successful efforts to mitigate these
challenges in OJJDP-funded training courses for local law enforcement
officials. Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government
call for management to identify and analyze the relative risks from
internal and external sources associated with achieving the agency's
objectives. Using existing CJIS and OJJDP mechanisms to (1) obtain
information on the extent to which LEAs face the types of challenges
we identified, as well as other challenges that may be prevalent or
significant and (2) share examples of LEA-reported successes to
mitigating the challenges, could better position DOJ to carry out its
oversight role over NCIC with respect to helping ensure compliance
with the 2-hour requirement.
Conclusions:
CJIS has a responsibility to ensure that missing children records are
complete, accurate, and timely to comply with federal requirements and
promote law enforcement's ability to investigate, locate, and provide
support to missing children. CJIS's reliance on CSAs to ensure
compliance with the 2-hour entry requirement underscores the
importance of CSAs' triennial audits of all LEAs that enter data into
NCIC within their jurisdiction. Evidence from our review of six CSAs
raises questions about the consistency and reliability of information
from CSA audits on LEA compliance with the 2-hour entry requirement.
Therefore, we believe it could be helpful for CJIS and the Board to
consider establishing minimum audit standards for assessing compliance
with the entry requirement. Such minimum standards could better
position CSAs to design audits of LEAs to obtain more consistent and
reliable information on LEA compliance with the requirement. This
could also help CJIS better accomplish its specific oversight and
compliance objectives for timely entry of reports of missing children.
Once these standards are established, by reviewing the CSA audit
approaches as part of CJIS's own triennial audits of CSAs, CJIS could
help ensure the standards are being met.
Because some LEAs we visited continued to identify challenges due to
custody disputes and coordination with child welfare agencies that
affected their ability to meet the 2-hour entry requirement despite
DOJ's previous efforts to address such challenges, it could be useful
for CJIS and OJJDP to consider using existing mechanisms to determine
the extent to which LEAs face these and other kinds of challenges and
to share approaches that LEAs have taken to mitigate these challenges.
Such actions could better position DOJ to carry out its oversight role
over NCIC with respect to helping ensure compliance with the 2-hour
requirement.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
We are making the following three recommendations:
To increase the likelihood that CJIS is positioned to oversee
compliance with the requirement that LEAs enter records of missing
children into NCIC within 2 hours, we recommend that the Director of
the FBI direct CJIS to consider:
* In collaboration with CSAs and the Board, establishing minimum
standards that provide CSAs guidance on assessing compliance with
timely entry requirements, including applying the 2-hour criterion and
how to sample missing children records; and:
* Ensuring that in future triennial audits, CJIS assesses the extent
to which CSA audit programs adhere to the minimum standards.
To increase the likelihood that LEAs are better positioned to comply
with the requirement to enter missing children records into NCIC
within 2 hours, we recommend that the Director of the FBI and the
Administrator of OJJDP consider opportunities to use existing
mechanisms to obtain information on the extent to which LEAs face
challenges--such as custodial determinations and coordination with
child welfare agencies--in reporting missing children to NCIC, and
share examples of successful efforts to mitigate these challenges.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report to DOJ for its review and comment.
We received written comments from the FBI, which are reproduced in
full in appendix I. The comments focused on actions the FBI plans to
take, to recommend that the CJIS Advisory Policy Board revise its
policy so that agencies found to be non-compliant with the 2-hour
requirement are referred immediately for sanctions. We did not
recommend this as part of our review, however, and so cannot address
the extent to which it will impact law enforcement's ability to comply
with the 2-hour requirement. Because DOJ's comment letter did not
state DOJ's position on our recommendations, we engaged in discussions
and e-mail exchanges with DOJ officials and on June 7 the Department's
audit liaison confirmed that the Department concurred with all three
recommendations.
On May 12, the Unit Chief of CJIS's Audit Unit provided oral comments
regarding our first two recommendations. Specifically, he stated that
CJIS plans to suggest that the Board consider and approve our first
two recommendations--establishing minimum audit standards for
assessing compliance with the 2-hour requirement and assessing
adherence to the standards in future CJIS audits. In a June 7 email,
DOJ's audit liaison stated that during meetings in fall 2011, CJIS,
through the Advisory Policy Board, plans to solicit the law
enforcement community's input on our third recommendation regarding
challenges to timely entry. Specifically, according to DOJ's audit
liaison, CJIS plans to obtain information regarding the challenges of
entering missing children reports into NCIC in a timely manner,
request examples of successful efforts to mitigate the challenges
presented and, among other things, document the lessons learned so
that they can be shared among the law enforcement community.
Furthermore, the liaison stated that OJJDP will include the subject of
timely reporting in at least six training sessions for local law
enforcement that OJJDP will sponsor over the next fiscal year. We
believe these steps would address the intent of our recommendations.
Because CJIS and OJJDP plan to take these steps, we redirected our
first two recommendations to the Director of the FBI, and our third
recommendation to both the Director of the FBI and the Administrator
of OJJDP, rather than the Attorney General. In commenting on the
draft, the Unit Chief of CJIS's Audit Unit reported that CJIS shares
responsibility for implementing and monitoring compliance with the 2-
hour requirement with the Board. Thus, we have modified language in
the objective and in the body of the report to reflect this shared
responsibility. Finally, the FBI provided technical comments which we
incorporated into the report, as appropriate.
As agreed with your offices, we plan no further distribution of this
report until 30 days from its date, unless you publicly announce its
contents earlier. At that time, we will send copies of this report to
the Attorney General, selected congressional committees, and other
interested parties. In addition, this report will be available at no
charge on the GAO Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff have any further questions about this report,
please contact me at (202) 512-8777 or larencee@gao.gov. Contact
points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs
may be found on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this
report are listed in app. II.
Signed by:
Eileen R. Larence:
Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Comments from the Federal Bureau of Investigation:
U.S. Department of Justice:
Federal Bureau of Investigation:
Washington, D.C. 20535-0001:
May 23, 2011:
Eileen R, Larence:
Director, Homeland Security and Justice:
United States Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, NW:
Washington, DC 20548:
Re: Missing Children:
Dear Ms. Larence:
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) appreciates the opportunity
to review and respond to your report entitled, "Missing Children - DOJ
Could Enhance Oversight to Help Ensure that Law Enforcement Agencies
Report Cases in a Timely Manner" (hereinafter, "Report").
We are pleased by the Report's conclusion that, "CJIS Has Taken Steps
to Ensure Compliance with the 2-hour Requirement and Has Issued Audit
Recommendations to Non-Compliant CSAs." As described in your Report,
the FBI's Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Division took a
number of steps to help ensure that Law Enforcement Agencies
implemented the 2-hour entry requirement following the enactment of
the Adam Walsh Act (hereinafter, "Act").
As noted, as a result of recent audits, CJIS found several agencies to
be out of compliance with the 2-hour entry requirement and issued
audit recommendations to them to take actions to ensure timely entry.
Due to the urgency and sensitivity of the Act, coupled with your
Report, the FBI has decided to raise these instances of non-compliance
at the next CJIS Advisory Policy Board (APB) meeting scheduled for
June 2011. Specifically, the FBI will suggest the APB consider
revising the current sanctions pOlicy which provides that no agency
will be referred within the 3-year initial policy audit rollout period.
The FBI will propose the APB consider that agencies found to be non-
compliant be referred immediately for sanctions.
As you know, the FBI's CJIS APB is a federal advisory committee
established in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The
FBI established the CJIS Advisory Process to obtain the law
enforcement user community's advice and guidance on the operation of
several criminal justice information sharing systems, including the
National Crime Information Center (NCIC). The philosophy underlying
the advisory process is one of shared management; that is, the FBI
along with local and state data providers and system users share
responsibility for the operation and management of all systems
administered by the FBI for the benefit of the criminal justice
community. Likewise, the CJIS APB is responsible for reviewing policy
issues and appropriate technical and operational issues related to the
programs administered by the FBI's CJIS Division.
The FBI remains committed to ensuring all CJIS System Agencies adhere
to the 2-hour entry requirement.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Louis E. Greyer:
Executive Assistant Director:
Science and Technology Branch:
[End of section]
Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Eileen R. Larence, (202) 512-8777 or larencee@gao.gov.
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contact named above, Evi Rezmovic, Assistant
Director; Tom Jessor; Heather May; Susan Czachor; Keesha Egebrecht;
Sharanjit Singh; Bill Crocker; Janet Temko; Amanda Miller; Linda
Miller; Labony Chakraborty; and Cheron Green made significant
contributions to this report.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] A.J. Sedlak, D. Finkelhor, H. Hammer, and D.J. Schultz, National
Estimates of Missing Children: An Overview, U.S. Department of
Justice's Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
(October 2002), 5.
[2] 42 U.S.C. §§ 5779-80. For purposes of this report, we refer to
individuals under the age of 21 as children, as that is how they are
referred to in the statute.
[3] K.M. Brown, R.D. Keppel, J.G. Weis, and M.E. Skeen, Case
Management for Missing Children Homicide Investigation, Office of the
Attorney General, State of Washington, and U.S. Department of
Justice's Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (May
2006), 13.
[4] H. Hammer, D. Finkelhor, and A.J. Sedlak, Runaway/Thrownaway
Children: National Estimates and Characteristics, U.S. Department of
Justice's Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
(October 2002), 2.
[5] Pub. L. No. 101-647, tit. XXXVII, §§ 3701-02, 104 Stat. 4789, 4966-
67 (codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 5779-80).
[6] Previously, only missing children under the age of 18 were
required to be entered into NCIC. However, in 2003, "Suzanne's Law," a
provision of the Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end the
Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2003 (PROTECT Act), amended the
National Child Search Assistance Act to require that individuals under
the age of 21 be included for purposes of law enforcement reporting to
the NCIC database. Pub. L. No. 108-21, § 204, 117 Stat. 650, 660.
[7] Pub. L. No. 109-248, § 154, 120 Stat. 587, 611.
[8] See, e.g., 149 Cong. Rec. S6855, S6868 (Statement of Senator Dodd).
[9] GAO, Internal Control: Standards for Internal Control in the
Federal Government, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1] (Washington, D.C.:
November 1999).
[10] NCMEC is a private, non-profit organization designated by statute
to serve as the official national resource center and information
clearinghouse for missing and exploited children and operate a
national 24-hour toll-free telephone line by which individuals may
report information regarding the location of any missing child. 42
U.S.C. § 5773(b). According to NCMEC officials, the majority of calls
to the hotline regarding missing children come from parents and
caregivers.
[11] We added this step based on the results of our work in the nine
locations; we chose the three states with the largest number of
children in foster care for whom state child welfare agencies have
responsibility for placement, care or supervision as of September 30,
2009, for follow-on work to better understand the issues while also
completing our review in a timely manner.
[12] 42 U.S.C. § 5773(b). Funding for the Missing and Exploited
Children program was $68.8 million in fiscal year 2009 and $69.5
million in fiscal year 2010. NCMEC received $30.5 million in grant
funds from OJJDP in each of fiscal years 2009 and 2010, to operate an
official national resource center and information center for missing
and exploited children, among other things.
[13] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1].
[14] An active record is one where the individual reported missing has
not yet been located.
[15] Major CJIS Division Programs also include Uniform Crime Reporting
(UCR), which collects, publishes and archives crime statistics for the
nation; the Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System
(IAFIS), a national fingerprint and criminal history system to help
local, state, and federal partners solve and prevent crime and catch
criminals and terrorists; National Instant Criminal Background Check
System (NICS), used to determine whether a prospective buyer is
eligible to buy firearms; Law Enforcement Online (LEO), a secure,
Internet-based communications portal that provides access to sensitive
but unclassified information and various state-of-the-art
communications services and tools to law enforcement, first
responders, criminal justice professionals, and anti-terrorism and
intelligence agencies; and the Law Enforcement National Data Exchange
(N-DEx), a criminal justice information sharing system that provides
nationwide connectivity to local, state, tribal, and federal systems
for the exchange of information.
[16] The NCIC Operating Manual contains standards and procedures to
help ensure the integrity of data in the system. The CJIS Security
Policy provides the minimum level of Information Technology (IT)
security requirements to safeguard CJIS data, which include
information on missing children.
[17] CSAs have responsibility for administration and usage of the CJIS
Division Programs within a state, district, territory, or foreign
country. This includes a federal agency that meets the definition and
provides services to other federal agencies and/or whose users reside
in multiple states or territories. As of March 2011, there are 72 CSAs
administering CJIS Division Programs.
[18] These costs are for travel to conduct NCIC audits. CJIS reported
that, to support the NCIC audits, 18 full time equivalent resources
were used in fiscal year 2009, and 15 full time equivalent resources
were used in fiscal year 2010, and projected that 17 full time
equivalent resources would be used in fiscal year 2011.
[19] CJIS officials stated that there are no official guidelines for
the number of agencies to audit, but CJIS normally selects 10 to 12
LEAs in each state.
[20] The sample is drawn from all active missing persons records,
irrespective of the date of entry into NCIC.
[21] The National Child Search Assistance Act of 1990, as amended,
requires each report of a missing child to NCIC to contain the
following information: (1) name, (2) date of birth, (3) sex, (4) race,
(5) height (6) weight, (7) eye color, (8) hair color, (9) date and
location of the last known contact with the child, and (10) specific
category under which the child is reported missing (missing and under
proven physical/mental disability; missing under circumstances
indicating may be in physical danger; missing under circumstances
indicating that the disappearance may not have been voluntary, e.g., a
kidnapping or abduction; missing after a catastrophe; a missing
juvenile under age 21 who does not meet any of the entry criteria for
the prior categories). 42 U.S.C. § 5780.
[22] CJIS policy and guidance regarding how compliance with the 2-hour
entry requirement would be defined and assessed was initially
developed by the CJIS Audit Unit following the passage of the Adam
Walsh Act, and subsequently presented for discussion to the CJIS
Advisory Policy Board and approved at the Board's spring 2007 meeting.
[23] NCIC Technical and Operational Updates are used to disseminate
information to CSAs and LEAs regarding changes to the NCIC Operating
Manual. Technical Operational Updates are published and made available
to all NCIC users via their CSA and Terminal Agency Coordinator, and
are available on Law Enforcement Online, a Web resource available to
all NCIC users.
[24] This would occur if LEAs have not been consistently documenting
the time and date when they obtained the minimum data required to make
a missing child entry into NCIC. For example, if an LEA documented the
date the report had been taken, but not the time of the report, the
information would not allow CJIS to accurately assess compliance with
the 2-hour entry requirement.
[25] CJIS is not in a position to independently determine why NCIC
entries are untimely, according to CJIS officials, because auditors
are not qualified to assess LEAs' investigative procedures and
processes.
[26] The Board has not established any standards regarding specific
areas that must be included in CSA audits of local LEAs.
[27] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1].
[28] Of the four CSAs we met with that had started using the 2-hour
criterion to assess timeliness of missing children records, one began
using the 2-hour criterion in February 2011, following the passage of
a state law in September 2010 (effective January 2012) that required
LEAs to report missing children to NCIC within 2 hours; two began
using the 2-hour criterion in October of 2009, the date when CJIS
began assessing timeliness using the 2-hour criterion. The other CSA
had been using the 2-hour criterion to assess timeliness since 2004 in
response to a state law that required law enforcement agencies to
report missing children to NCIC within 2 hours.
[29] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1].
[30] Officials from the other two LEAs stated that custody
determination issues do not challenge their ability to report or
investigate a missing child.
[31] National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, Law
Enforcement Policy and Procedures for Reports of Missing and Abducted
Children: A Model (Alexandria, Va.: 2006).
[32] P.M. Hoff, Family Abduction: Prevention and Response (Sixth
Edition), a special report prepared at the request of the National
Center for Missing and Exploited Children (2009).
[33] The child welfare system consists of state and local judges and
other court personnel, prosecutors, law enforcement personnel, and
child welfare agencies. Child welfare agencies are responsible for
services to protect children from abuse or neglect including providing
services to families in their own homes, removing children from homes
if necessary, and supervising and administering payments for children
in out-of-home settings, such as foster care group homes.
[34] Officials from the other three LEAs did not report that
difficulty in obtaining information about missing children who are in
the child welfare system challenges their ability to report or
investigate a missing child.
[35] S.E. Seidel, Missing and Abducted Children: A Law-Enforcement
Guide to Case Investigation and Program Management (Third Edition), a
special report prepared at the request of the National Center for
Missing and Exploited Children (2006).
[36] T.B. Smith, K. Buniak, L. Condon, and L. Reed, Children Missing
From Care: The Law-Enforcement Response, a special report prepared at
the request of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children
(2005).
[37] K. Dedel, Juvenile Runaways, a special report prepared at the
request of the Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Department
of Justice (2006).
[38] The CJIS Division holds an annual 3-day overview training session
for local, state, federal, and tribal representatives, at which
representatives from all CJIS systems--including NCIC--present
information on any changes and enhancements to the systems. NCIC
policies are also disseminated at the training sessions.
[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: