Abusive registry

Abusive registry
Legislative fix for flawed list should be a priority

December 6, 2001

Imagine being labeled a child abuser for no reason. Think of what it would be like to be denied a job, fired or have your business ruined on the basis of nothing more than bureaucratic blundering. Worse, imagine finding out that your child was in danger in a place you thought was safe.

Either scenario would be a nightmare. Yet either could happen to almost anyone in Colorado thanks to flaws in a state program intended to prevent child abuse.

State auditors told a legislative committee Monday that a list meant to allow agencies and employers to track child abusers is full of errors. The Central Registry of Child Protection is used to screen applicants for jobs running foster homes or providing child care. It supposedly contains the names of 114,000 known or suspected child abusers.

It may, however, be more dangerous than useful. As The Associated Press reported, the auditors found that some "76,000 records were missing the perpetrator’s birth date; 46,000 did not have a Social Security number; the nature of abuse was missing in 1,200 cases; and the date of the incident was missing in 1,300."

The auditors also found that 305 individuals who have been convicted of child abuse or sexual abuse are not listed on the registry. Another 19 names that appear on the state’s Convicted Sex Offender Web site were missing as well.

The errors, not surprisingly, work both ways. In one such case, Weld County officials notified parents of children in a day-care center that a worker there was under investigation for child abuse. The state later confirmed that no such investigation was under way and that the entire matter was a case of mistaken identity. The worker had a common name.

Terrified parents, a decent business defamed, an innocent person humiliated, and real bad guys unnoticed – it is hard to see a redeeming aspect to this registry.

The state can remedy the situation by funding the program to allow for timely and accurate record keeping. It could reduce the workload by limiting the list to individuals actually arrested or convicted. Or it could do away with the registry entirely and use court records for background checks.

The latter sounds more likely, but in any case, the Legislature should make fixing this mess a priority in the next session. Needlessly slandering innocent people is unacceptable. Risking that while possibly endangering children is disgraceful.