A nonprofit that advocates for the victims of child abuse is questioning the access to information Maryland has been granting the organization, even though it says the state has improved in policy on public disclosures of deaths or near deaths in abuse or neglect cases.
Maryland, D.C. and Virginia all received higher grades in the report released Tuesday by the Children’s Advocacy Institute and the nonprofit First Star than they did in the previous report in 2008.
In 2008, Maryland received an F, with a score of 59 points. In the new report, the state received a score of 74 to nab a C. During the interim period, the General Assembly amended code to require disclosure when a child named in a report of abuse or neglect died or nearly died and to revise the extent of information that can be released.
“Maryland improved because the law improved,” said Elissa Garr, executive director of First Star.
However, in light of the changes, her group is unhappy with the access to information it says it has been getting from Maryland’s Department of Human Resources, or DHR.
In response to a request about child fatalities and near fatalities in the six months following the amendments becoming effective, the department has provided information to First Star about three deaths. Officials said none of these children had previously been in the system.
“We expected more [cases] than that,” said First Star Vice Chairwoman Sherry Quirk. National data reported that in federal fiscal year 2009, Maryland had 17 deaths resulting from child abuse or neglect.
DHR spokesman Pat Hines said that although there are laws that protect access to some information, the department tries hard to assist organizations seeking data.
“We want to be as helpful as we can,” Hines said.
First Star and DHR are going to meet to discuss the advocacy group’s issues, officials from both organizations said.
Virginia improved from a C- to a B- because the state’s public disclosure policy became mandatory in 2009. The District improved from a B- to a B+, although the apparent improvement was due to minor refinements to scoring guidelines rather than to a change in policy.
