Federal Audit Finds Arkansas Mishandled Child Abuse Reports, Including Rape Allegations

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. — Arkansas improperly rejected reports of alleged child rape and children being watched by cameras while undressing, and state agencies failed to document required notifications, interviews, and safety assessments in numerous investigations, according to a new federal audit.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General found deficiencies in 138 of 140 accepted child abuse and neglect reports examined. Based on that sample, auditors estimated that 20,964 of 21,268 accepted in-home reports — about 99% — failed to meet at least one screening, assessment or investigation requirement.

The findings concerned the Arkansas Department of Human Services’ Division of Children and Family Services and the Crimes Against Children Division of Arkansas State Police, which operates the state’s child abuse hotline and investigates severe maltreatment.

The estimate does not mean auditors individually examined nearly 21,000 investigations or found that every aspect of those investigations failed. Many findings involved missing or late documentation. Auditors said they could not verify that certain required actions occurred, rather than concluding those actions definitively did not occur.

Arkansas agreed with three of the audit’s six recommendations and partially agreed with the other three. In its written response, the state acknowledged most specific compliance findings and described changes to training, supervision, policies and recordkeeping.

Reports rejected at the hotline

The audit examined reports received between Oct. 1, 2023, and Sept. 30, 2024. Auditors reviewed a sample of 70 rejected reports separately from the 140 accepted reports.

Ten of the 70 rejected reports were improperly screened out, according to the audit. Auditors projected that about 3,956 of 27,690 rejected reports, or 14%, were not handled in accordance with state requirements.

One rejected report involved an 11-year-old girl who disclosed being raped when she was 6. Hotline operators rejected it because they believed a young child might not clearly understand the word rape, auditors wrote.

Another involved allegations that two children were watched through security cameras while undressing in their bedroom. Operators rejected that report because their hotline manual did not address voyeurism, even though the guide used by investigators included voyeurism in the statutory definition of sexual abuse.

Other rejected reports involved inadequate efforts to locate children or obtain additional information. In one case, the hotline did not follow up for clarification after a mandated reporter relayed a child’s disclosure of molestation, according to the audit.

A tenth report should have been classified as a duplicate. Because it was instead labeled as not involving abuse or neglect, additional information was not forwarded to the investigator handling the earlier report.

DCFS initially said six of the nine other reports involved concurrent or subsequent agency involvement in which children’s safety was assessed. One involved a person who was now an adult and had no younger siblings in the home. For two reports, the agency said children’s safety had not been assessed, according to the audit.

In its formal response, the state said an additional review concluded five reports should have been accepted, four needed callbacks before a screening decision, and one should have been coded as a duplicate.

Missing notices and delayed investigations

For 132 of the 140 accepted reports, auditors found insufficient documentation that required notices of investigative determinations had been issued.

The deficiencies included missing documentation of notices to alleged victims, parents, alleged offenders, schools, law enforcement and prosecutors. Some requirements applied only to particular cases, and the categories overlapped.

Among severe maltreatment reports with findings that allegations were true, 18 lacked documentation that determination notices were sent to law enforcement or prosecutors. State police investigators said some notices were provided verbally instead of through the required written notice.

DCFS told auditors it had not sent determination notices to parents because its Office of Chief Counsel advised that those notices were not required. The agency also said it was unaware of a state requirement to notify schools following true determinations and had not updated its policy, according to the audit.

Auditors also found that the agencies could not support compliance with interview requirements in 134 accepted reports. That included 84 without documentation that all required interviews occurred or that investigators made adequate efforts to conduct them, and 127 with at least one interview documented late. The categories overlapped.

Eleven interviews with alleged child victims were not conducted within the required time frame, according to the audit.

Thirty-two investigations were completed late, with delays ranging from one day to more than 200 days beyond the required time frame. The agencies cited heavy workloads, staffing shortages and delays involving case transfers or reassignments.

For 16 reports, the state could not provide documentation supporting completion of required safety assessments. Auditors noted that DCFS had changed its assessment process in January 2023 without updating its policy manual to reflect the change.

Arkansas’ response

In an Aug. 21 response included with the audit, Arkansas said the findings would inform improvements to investigative practices, documentation, supervisory oversight and technology.

The state asked auditors to distinguish between work that did not occur, work that occurred but was insufficiently documented, and work documented elsewhere in the case record. It also disputed any implication that limitations in the state’s information system alone proved required parent interviews had not occurred.

The inspector general said auditors reviewed records in the state’s Children’s Reporting Information System, known as CHRIS, along with additional records and supporting information supplied outside that system. Where compliance could not be substantiated, auditors reported noncompliance.

Arkansas said it had implemented a notice for alleged victims following unsubstantiated findings on June 4, 2026, and planned additional notification changes by mid-September. Those statements describe the state’s plans at the time of its response; the audit does not independently establish that every planned change was subsequently completed.

State police said it had revised its file review guide, reinforced supervisory checks, clarified documentation expectations and provided additional hotline training.

The state also said the agencies would revise the hotline manual and jointly review their investigative policies. Its response linked a comprehensive manual revision to potential statutory changes being developed for consideration during the 2027 legislative session.

Auditors recommended reviewing improperly rejected reports, clarifying hotline guidance, strengthening notifications, aligning agency procedures with applicable requirements, improving identification of parents in CHRIS and reinforcing investigative requirements.

The inspector general maintained the findings and recommendations, while concluding that the state’s actions fulfilled the recommendation to review the improperly screened-out reports and act as appropriate.

The audit did not determine whether any child experienced actual harm as a result of the identified failures. Auditors said failures to meet child protection requirements can increase the risk of harm.

The review is part of a federal audit series examining state compliance with the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act. The inspector general said Arkansas was selected after a risk assessment and consideration of news reports about a child whose abuse had been reported to the hotline 29 times over 11 years before police intervened.

Read the full federal audit, including Arkansas’ response (PDF).