We don't ask you to take our word for it.
Every published claim should lead somewhere: to a record, to the source that supports it, and to a clear explanation of what we know, what we do not know, and whether the number is allowed into CHILDREN FOUND.
A record can be publishable without being counter-eligible.
We may publish a traceable record that is still being researched, needs follow-up, contains an unresolved ambiguity, or otherwise does not meet the higher standard required to change CHILDREN FOUND. Publication means there is enough evidence to responsibly show you the record. It does not automatically mean every number in that record is counted.
We show where a record stands.
Discovered or entered, but not yet substantively reviewed.
Evidence is being gathered, checked, or reconciled.
The published claims have met our verification standard.
A material question remains unresolved.
A material claim has been challenged, contradicted, or removed from reliance.
A status describes the state of our review. It does not convert an agency statement into our own independent eyewitness knowledge. The source remains the source.
We preserve what the responsible source actually said.
Where the responsible authoritative source explicitly classifies the subjects of an event as missing children, endangered missing children, missing juveniles, or equivalent missing-child terminology, Where Are the Kids? reports that classification as published. We do not independently reclassify individual subjects based on incomplete demographic information. Exact source terminology is preserved, and any known material qualification or contradiction is documented.
Agency releases, official statements, court or government records, and other responsible original sources are preferred when available. Secondary reporting can help discover or corroborate an event, but we do not silently replace the source's terminology with wording that sounds cleaner or more certain.
CHILDREN FOUND has to survive an audit.
To change the public counter, an outcome must be attached to a Verified record, be the primary outcome for that event, be explicitly marked counter-eligible, and use an exact count. This is deliberately stricter than the standard for simply publishing a record.
Our public umbrella term is Children Found. It can include children reported by the responsible source as recovered, safely located, or otherwise accounted for in a qualifying positive outcome. The source's own terminology remains visible underneath that umbrella.
A person still qualifies as a found child when the relevant evidence establishes that they were a child when they went missing or became endangered, even if they were located after turning 18.
“30+” does not become 31.
If a source says “more than 30,” “approximately 20,” or otherwise gives a qualified figure, we preserve that uncertainty. We do not invent a precise number just because a database prefers one.
When sources conflict, the conflict is documented rather than quietly averaged away. When necessary, the record can remain public while the disputed number stays out of the counter.
We actively guard against double-counting.
Large operations can contain component operations, multiple agency announcements, follow-up releases, or later summaries of the same recoveries. We preserve parent/component relationships and possible overlap so a child is not counted twice simply because the same success was announced more than once.
When overlap cannot yet be resolved confidently, the safer choice is to leave the questionable figure out of CHILDREN FOUND until it can be reconciled.
We document the work, not the private lives of children.
The project focuses on operations, agencies, outcomes, dates, places, and evidence. Names, photographs, family details, medical information, and other sensitive information may be unavailable, protected, or simply unnecessary to establish that an operation occurred and children were found.
Lack of identifying detail does not automatically mean lack of substance. We publish only what can be responsibly established.
AI helps with the work. AI is not the authority.
AI-assisted tools may help discover possible records, organize sources, identify inconsistencies, support database development and analysis, and assist with drafting. They do not become the evidence simply because they found or summarized something.
Published factual claims must trace back to identifiable source material and our verification process. When AI and a source disagree, the source evidence wins — or the disagreement becomes something we investigate.
Being transparent includes showing when something changes.
Records can move through verification states as better evidence appears. Material corrections, withdrawals, disputes, and follow-up findings should remain traceable rather than disappearing without explanation.
Our standard is not “we were right because we published it.” The standard is whether the claim can be supported by the evidence available now.