{"id":31528,"date":"2018-05-24T19:37:17","date_gmt":"2018-05-24T19:37:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/caseyfamilyv2.wpengine.com\/birth-match-programs\/"},"modified":"2026-08-18T16:30:30","modified_gmt":"2026-08-18T16:30:30","slug":"birth-match-programs","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.casey.org\/es\/birth-match-programs\/","title":{"rendered":"What do we know about birth match?"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n\n \n \n \n \n

Summary<\/h3>\n

This brief explores ‘birth match,’ a data-driven tool designed to predict and prevent child abuse.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n \n \n \n <\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

\n
\n
\n \n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n
\n
\n\n \n \n \n \n

<\/p>\n

Research has identified a number of characteristics within families that may correlate to higher risk of severe injury or fatality from child abuse and neglect. Although the vast majority of families with these characteristics will not harm their children, even one death from child abuse and neglect is too many. As a result, jurisdictions increasingly are investigating how data within public and private information systems might be harnessed, using what we know from research, to more effectively identify children at risk of harm before the unthinkable occurs.1<\/sup><\/a> Predicting risk of future harm is not an exact science, however, and a number of key tensions and considerations must be addressed and resolved.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

This brief describes birth match as one attempt to use data to predict risk and prevent future harm, offering examples of jurisdictional implementation, a snapshot of the evidence, and highlights of the national conversation regarding the ethical dilemmas inherent in this approach.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n \n \n \n <\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

\n
\n\n \n

What is birth match?<\/h2>\n \n \n \n

<\/p>\n

Birth match refers to the use of data to proactively identify newborns in families that have some prior significant history with child protective services (CPS)<\/b><\/span>. This typically occurs through a formal data-sharing agreement between the jurisdiction\u2019s CPS agency and the department of vital statistics or other source of birth data. Historically, birth match strategies have been implemented by law or agency policy following a tragic death or severe injury of an infant that might have been prevented had CPS been aware of the child\u2019s birth. This strategy was recommended by the U.S. Commission to Eliminate Child Abuse and Neglect Fatalities in its final report, issued in March 2016,2<\/sup><\/a> and is currently employed in at least four states \u2014 Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, and Texas \u2014 and in New York City.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n \n \n \n <\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

\n
\n
\n

Our best predictions of harm occur when a child is highly vulnerable and the parent has clearly demonstrated inadequate or unsafe parenting\u2026. It\u2019s very important [to start] to think about ways to narrow down to populations that we could really intervene with high levels of efficiency.3<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

— Dr. Richard Barth, Dean and Professor, University of Maryland<\/cite><\/figcaption>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n<\/figure>\n\n\n
\n
\n\n \n

How have jurisdictions implemented birth match?<\/h2>\n \n \n \n

<\/p>\n

Jurisdictional policy regarding birth match programs exists on a continuum. Tensions and ethical considerations increase the further the program moves from linking birth records to families with an open\/active case to families with no prior involvement with child welfare but considered high risk.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

In New York City<\/b><\/span>, any infant born to a family with a sibling in foster care in the city must receive his or her own child protective investigation soon after birth. Caseworkers are responsible for identifying pregnancy and births in their own active cases. The investigation includes a child safety conference among parents, CPS and foster care workers, and other service providers. In most cases, this is expected to lead to placement of the infant in out-of-home care; exceptions must be reviewed and approved at the assistant commissioner level.4<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

In Maryland<\/b><\/span>, the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene conducts the birth match process. The agency receives periodic reports from the Department of Human Resources regarding parents who have had a termination of parental rights (TPR) within the past five years as a result of abuse or neglect. The Vital Statistics Division is responsible for matching that list against a list of parents with newborns. Notification of matches is sent weekly to the local department of social services, which is required to assess the child\u2019s safety and offer preventive services to the parents.5<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

In Michigan<\/b><\/span>, the birth match system automatically notifies the state\u2019s centralized intake via daily emails when a new child is born to a parent who had a previous TPR, caused the death of a child due to abuse and\/or neglect, or has been manually added to the match list for another reason. A perpetrator\u2019s name must be manually added to the birth match list in serious child abuse\/neglect cases when TPR will not be requested or ordered, including when a nonparent adult is the perpetrator. Once the match\u2019s accuracy is verified, the family must be assigned for investigation unless a pending investigation or open case already exists. The information included in the birth match, including related history, must be used to evaluate child safety in the pending investigation or open case.6<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

In Minnesota<\/b><\/span>, the birth match program seeks to identify infants born to parents who have had a previous involuntary TPR, involuntary transfer of custody, or \u201cdetermination of egregious harm.\u201d Past voluntary TPR or transfer of custody may be considered for reports but are not included in the birth match process. Birth match findings result in a mandatory report of substantial child endangerment to the local child welfare agency. The Department of Human Services makes the matches based on birth records received from the Department of Health. Birth match cases must be screened in and receive an investigation unless the family already is involved in an open case specific to the newborn child.7<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n \n \n \n <\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

\n
\n\n \n

What is the level of evidence for birth match?<\/h2>\n \n \n \n

<\/p>\n

Evidence of effectiveness for birth match suffers many of the same challenges that plague other preventive strategies. It is difficult to prove something didn\u2019t happen as a result of an intervention, and this is even more challenging when the event to be prevented is relatively rare. Research is further complicated because the approach currently is employed in so few jurisdictions. Finally, birth match assumes a link between a prior report of child abuse or neglect and risk of future harm, which current research has not yet confirmed.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

According to one study that examined the practice in three jurisdictions, \u201cThe empirical support for the birth match approach rests, primarily, in the findings that newborns are extremely vulnerable and families that are involved with (child welfare services) once are often involved again.\u201d8<\/sup><\/a> Along these lines, birth match may make sense because we know that infants are a particularly vulnerable population<\/b><\/span>. Nearly half of all child abuse and neglect fatalities (49.4 percent in 2015) occur before the child\u2019s first birthday, and infants under age 1 die from abuse and neglect at three times the rate of older children.9<\/sup><\/a> This is due to their size and physiology, dependence on caregivers, and the fact that infants may have little or no exposure to community members who could report early warning signs, particularly in isolated families (where fatality and severe injuries are more likely to occur).<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

No data exist to show that infants whose parents had a TPR with a previous child are more likely to experience a child maltreatment fatality or near fatality. While there is evidence that past reports to CPS on a specific child serve as an effective predictor of that child\u2019s future maltreatment<\/b><\/span>, this research demonstrates only that prior reports for the same child increase that same child\u2019s fatality risk. Specifically, a study in California found that, after adjusting for other risk factors, a prior report to CPS was the single strongest predictor of a child\u2019s potential risk for injury death (intentional or unintentional) before age 5. In particular, children with a prior CPS report had 5.8 times greater risk of death from intentional injuries.10<\/sup><\/a> Research showing that prior reports for a sibling increase a newborn infant\u2019s risk of serious harm would provide stronger support for current birth match policies.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Some data exists from states that have implemented birth match. For example, Michigan reports that 49 children were protected from \u201clikely harm\u201d in 2013, 74 children in 2012, and 82 in 2011.11<\/sup><\/a> In Maryland, 30 percent of the matches (14 of 47) made between October 2010 and September 2011 that were previously unknown to CPS resulted in a case being opened for the child to address identified service needs.12<\/sup><\/a> It is important to note, however, that the act of opening a case for an identified service need does not necessarily correlate to a finding of child abuse or neglect or threat of harm.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n \n \n \n <\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

\n