How many CyberTipline referrals annually are forwarded to federal prosecutors vs. state/ICAC task forces?

1. What the raw CyberTipline numbers show and what NCMEC publicly reports

NCMEC’s CyberTipline report documents extraordinary volume—more than 35.9 million incoming reports in 2023 and a historical total in the tens of millions since 1998—and states that “more than 1.1 million reports were referred to law enforcement in the U.S.” while the majority of reports originate and are referred internationally ^{[1] [4] [2]}. Those U.S.-referred reports are described broadly as being provided to a mix of Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) task forces and “other federal, state and local law enforcement,” but NCMEC’s public materials do not break that 1.1 million figure into a line-item count for federal prosecutors versus state/ICAC task forces ^{[1] [2]}.

2. How NCMEC decides where to send a referral — the geolocation and jurisdiction rules

NCMEC’s operational guidance explains that when a local jurisdiction can be geolocated, reports are “typically” sent to regional ICAC task forces and other local partners; conversely, “if a local jurisdiction cannot be determined, the report is made available to federal law enforcement for their review” ^{[4] [3]}. Stanford researchers and experts interviewed confirm that NCMEC generally routes geolocated leads to one of the 61 ICAC task forces, although panels note that many reports also “frequently” go to federal law enforcement ^[5].

3. Why a simple numeric split is not available in public reporting

Public sources supplied here—NCMEC’s CyberTipline reports, Stanford’s analysis, and DOJ papers on coordination—describe workflow, volume, and institutional pathways but do not publish an annual, official tally that distinguishes referrals that went to federal prosecutors from those routed to state or ICAC task forces ^{[2] [5] [6]}. The DOJ materials emphasize deconfliction and integrated workflows between federal and state partners, implying referrals can be multi‑layered (e.g., made available to federal partners for review or coordinated across agencies), which complicates any attempt to count a single “destination” per report ^[6].

4. What the available qualitative evidence implies about the balance

Multiple sources indicate that regional ICAC task forces are the default recipient when location is known and that federal agencies receive reports when jurisdiction is unclear or when cases implicate federal statutes—so a substantial share of geolocated reports likely goes first to ICACs, while non‑geolocated or complex leads move to federal review ^{[5] [3]}. NCMEC’s own statement that the agencies “include the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Forces and other federal, state and local law enforcement” suggests a mixed distribution but stops short of quantifying how many referrals land with federal prosecutors versus state/ICAC units ^[1].

5. How to get a definitive numeric answer and why it matters

A precise annual split—number A forwarded to U.S. Attorneys’ Offices (federal prosecutors) and number B routed to state/ICAC task forces—appears to be outside the scope of the public documents provided; obtaining it would likely require targeted data requests to NCMEC, the Department of Justice (USAOs), or FOIA requests to ICAC networks, or analysis of administrative records such as those TRAC compiles from USAO systems ^{[7] [1]}. Knowing the split matters for assessing prosecutorial capacity, resource allocation between federal and state partners, and the policy debates over mandatory platform reporting and its downstream impacts ^{[8] [9]}.